On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Ian Booth <[email protected]> wrote:
> What do others think? Are my thoughts sensible? Is the type of > refactoring that would be required to "fix" the current implementation > something that would be considered for inclusion in the MGPP? I answered several at once before, and missed this point. Assuming you mean 'Multi-Generational Product Plan' by MGPP; we don't have a formal MGPP at the moment; we have adopted an agile approach and each team is using kanban to balance: - bug fixing, tech debt - feature work At the architecture level, my current cards are: - performance - driving page load times down to 1-2 seconds each - releasing-features-when-they-are-done - helping us have less inventory and faster cycle times I've certainly been identifying the mapping structure as a key driver for why performance is heard in launchpad, and I'm a huge fan of testing with substituted interfaces - dependency injection : the bzr test suite uses that, and the inverse, interface conformance testing - quite a lot. So - yes, addressing this in some fashion is in the MGPP (in that its on my radar), but we its not in anyones queue yet. Doing it incrementally is, of course, sensible, but I think that we need infrastructural changes in lower layers (storm) to really do it well, and we'll want those to be done without breaking the API, so that we can then roll them out incrementally in LP itself. We can and should prepare LP to take advantage of changes to Storm, and I encourage anyone that wants to help move this forward to hop onto the storm channel and list, and get stuck in :) -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
