[Cosmo] A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge

[Lisa Dusseault]

On Feb 2, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Ted Leung wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> One possible fix to avoid having another SVN module, and thus  
>> require another name, is to combine Cosmo and Scooby under one SVN  
>> module, and have a "scooby-complete" download or build that  
>> includes everything Snarf does.  When BCM thought of this today in  
>> the server meeting there were surprised approval sounds all around  
>> the room and people also thought of the advantages of moving to a  
>> single mailing list and IRC channel if we'd like.  We'd keep  
>> releases of Cosmo and Scooby still possibly independent.  E.g. a  
>> release of Cosmo might happen in one month, and a release of  
>> Scooby with a "scooby-complete" including that release of Cosmo  
>> could happen a week later, a month later, or whatever seems best.   
>> Preserving the ability to do independent releases of the sharing  
>> server and the calendar WebUI, what's the best way to manage both  
>> in SVN? in community forums?
>
> For the record, I made neither approval nor disapproval noises.  I  
> think we have decide whether we have one project or two...

that's why we're going to the list!  that meeting was the wrong place  
to determine consensus, I was just trying to say that we'd heard some  
encouragement to bring this up.
>
>
> Are we going to merge product planning as well as merging the  
> code?   If we just have one project, does it make sense to keep the  
> two pieces on the same release schedule?  If not, then doesn't that  
> mean we have two projects?   One problem that I see with merging  
> the two projects is that integrated projects take longer to ship,  
> since you have to wait for everybody to be ready.  I'd hate to see  
> the pace of Cosmo development/releases slow down (which I think  
> negatively impacts Chandler) in order to keep in sync with Scooby.

The alignments between projects and other pieces are uncertain in  
many ways. As you point out, one could merge product planning.   
Chandler is one project with two development groups and both separate  
and combined status meetings, whereas Cosmo and Scooby are two  
projects today but with one status meeting.  I don't think that  
having one SVN repository necessarily implies we would need to change  
product planning practices.  I guess the project alignment issue  
overall is one that we're actively questioning various parts of,  
rather than going with the unconscious assumptions we'd previously used.

thanks!
lisa