Does it make sense to have an afternoon or a full day about long-term plans and their implications for immediate priorities and tests?
Try to capture topics that could be specific agenda items with their own session or conversation -- by creating a separate thread about it on the list, a separate wiki page about it, or by adding a session to the draft agenda. (thread convergence : annotation v. creation) http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1#Agenda SJ Ed wrote: > I just want to acknowledge that the "*some* piece we can do now" > might not produce anything shippable in a 9.1 timeframe. I'd like to see [in future cycles] a more explicit option to include codepaths that are turned off (to make testing easier), or to suggest for a testing sprint something that is unlikely to be 'ready to ship' but does need the extra testing rigor for eventual completeness. On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ed McNierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We need to figure out how to start work that takes more than 5 - 6 months > NOW. I'm concerned that if we start the 9.2 planning meeting "after 9.1", > we will (yet again) discover that there's no time to do anything that takes > more than about 5 months. We need to break that cycle and try to figure out > how to get the *most important* work started right away, whether that work > is deliverable in a 9.1 timeframe, a 9.2 timeframe, or longer. > >> In the past we have divided tasks into "next release" and "future >> release" where the "future" really means "never" because we don't do >> *any* of the work in the "next release" timeframe. That needs to >> stop. *Everything* we want in a "future release" must have *some* >> piece we can do now, so that we continue to make progress on our >> long-term goals. > > Yes, I very much agree with this sentiment, so I don't think we disagree > much on the overall goals but need to reach a bit more consensus on the > implementation details. I just want to acknowledge that the "*some* piece > we can do now" might not produce anything shippable in a 9.1 timeframe. Or > perhaps it's something shippable but not usable, so we do ship something in > 9.1 that's really only a partial implementation so not many users need to > know or care about it. I'm OK with considering any approach that lets us > start that kind of work soon. > > - Ed > > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
