Re: Desktop 0.7.1 Priorities

Aparna Kadakia <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.osaf.design
Message-ID <[email protected]>
What's the process for nominating additional bugs on the 0.7.1 list?

Should I just add it to this list:
http://chandlerproject.org/Notes/DotSevenDotOneBugNominations

and explain how it fits into our 0.7.1 tenets or should we do it over  
email?

On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:

> When we created 0.7.1 as a milestone target, we had a loose notion  
> that we'd move interop work there. We then added recorded script  
> fixes, then some i18n/l10n work, then various odds and ends bugs  
> that didn't make it into Preview. Now we have an odd grab bag --  
> perhaps time to take a step back and reframe/reprioritize 0.7.1.
>
> A proposal for 0.7.1 priorities...
>
> Tenet 1: Fix what is really, really broken (bugs that might really  
> block users)
> - interop: solve immediate problems for users migrating data into  
> Chandler
> - data integrity problems
> - problems that paralyze users when they encounter them
> - egregious polish problems
> - fix small usability problems that users encounter right away
>
> Mimi has nominated top 20 bugs in this category (not including  
> interop): http://chandlerproject.org/Notes/ 
> DotSevenDotOneBugNominations
>
> I assume we'll run into a few others as the first users encounter  
> them.
>
> Tenet 2: Recording script framework fixes
> - QA team and John to prioritize work
>
> Tenet 3: I18n/L10n
> - solve immediate problems for localizers
>
> How is this different from the current set of 0.7.1 bugs?
> - Instead of tackling all interop issues, just focus on ones that  
> block real users from getting data into chandler. By "real users" I  
> mean, someone who tells us that they have their data in some other  
> calendar and can't get it into Chandler.
>
> - Mimi prioritized the non-interop, non-localization, non-testing  
> related bugs to those top 20, others don't need to make the cut.
>
> - No "interop with Apple calendar server"
>
> - No "interop with Google"
>
> Why have a quick turn around release? Just like with the server, we  
> want a chance to scoop up the worst problems that we see the first  
> users run into in the next month. Work on the most obvious list of  
> fixes for this first month while we buy a little time to get real  
> feedback from Preview, which will shape the roadmap from here. Show  
> a sense of momentum and responsiveness to initial feedback.
>
> Estimate requests:
> - It would be great to have an estimate for interop with Apple's  
> calendar server
> - It would be great to have an estimate for interop with Google
> - It would be great to have an estimate for the tenets above. Would  
> we need a smaller set to cut a 0.7.1 in ~1 month? (We might need to  
> scrub the interop bugs more carefully to answer this question).
>
> What comes after 0.7.1? I'm currently thinking that we should move  
> to a time-based system instead of a feature-based release schedule.  
> (I know you all have been talking about this kind of plan). PPD  
> would have some overall prioritization of tasks/work, and as tasks  
> were completed they would land in the next release. A bigger  
> feature might get worked on in a branch and land all at once,  
> similarly for a refactoring. (A bigger change as proposed by PJE we  
> might have to plan for differently). PPD would be able to  
> reprioritize week to week (or cycle to cycle) based on feedback as  
> it comes in.
>
> FWIW, I wouldn't expect all users to pick up the latest dot  
> release. New users who show up *would* get the latest release  
> though, and any user blocked by a particular problem could go get  
> the latest release. I think it is important to create "releases"  
> and not just rely on checkpoints. We're now beyond "dogfooding" --  
> we now have real users who aren't going to want to pick up a  
> checkpoint.
>
> Interested in thoughts on all of this.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.