Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
One comment about the swags -- other groups/projects have been using wiki tables to track tasks,
The rationale behind using Bugzilla instead of a Wiki table was:
- the App team felt this need may be more than other because:
- bugs have been filled that are really feature work
- specs do point to bugzilla records
- most of our task for 0.6 have a cleanup/fit and finish focus and the difference between bug and task is becoming too blurry
- the consensus then was that having one single spot to report and track everything (bugs and tasks) would make our life easier
and have a swag column as well. The convention for the swag value has been:Indeed, we want to have estimates that are consistent for both bugs and tasks, hence the extended range. I think however that in 0.6 we need to focus and stay clear from "1 month" tasks... This is at least true for the Chandler App team.
small => a few days
med => 1-2 weeks
large => ~1 month
These values were meant to swag task times at the beginning of a project, before enough detailed work was done to build a detailed schedule. I know that the apps team is trying to break things down into smaller tasks to do better estimates. Also, we presumably want these to apply to bugs as well as tasks.
The App team is already using this since a couple of weeks and it worked well for us. Consistency is indeed important within the team. Using different scale for bugs and tasks will lead to problems if, say, a bug is upgraded to a task because it's really a new feature and we need a spec for it.You are proposing:
* [SWAG : Trivial] : bug that takes a few hours to fix
* [SWAG : Small] : 1 day to fix or implement
* [SWAG : Medium] : 2 to 3 days to fix or implement
* [SWAG : Big] : 1 week to fix or implement
* [SWAG : Huge] : 2 weeks or more to fix or implement (those are good candidates for spec and further decomposition)
Is it important to be consistent? Are people happy with the swag units as proposed here?
I like the proposal overall. +1
Thanks!... :)
BTW, I'd like to have the votes of you Apps devs (got only Bryan so far). I'd also like to get your comment on the "App:" prefix issue for components. I personally feel that the current component list feels a little chaotic without this extra level of organization but I won't fight the issue if the consensus agrees with Heikki and Katie. I just want something that makes our life easier... What do you guys think?
Cheers, - Philippe _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
