On 1 February 2012 03:32, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > Hi, please glance at > https://dev.launchpad.net/PolicyAndProcess/MaintenanceCosts > > The basic idea is that we are where we are today because we didn't at > any point put a cap on the overheads involved in maintaining > Launchpad. The ratio of developer time that goes into maintenance vs > delivering new functionality is quite high, and if it continues to > grow we may never climb out of the technical-debt hole that we have.
Thanks for writing this. In terms of features, it'd be interesting to have a "no feature is sacred" mentality. I think we already do, to an extent and that we should keep it in mind when considering what we can cut in order to reduce maintenance burden. For example, and only an example, imports from Mercurial have never worked particularly well, we don't have time to fix them right now and there are fewer than 200 active (around 40 of which are borked) imports. That's a pretty easy example but I bet there are other places where we can sharpen Launchpad's focus to those things it does well and, in doing so, reduce maintenance costs. -- Matthew Revell Launchpad Product Manager Canonical https://launchpad.net/~matthew.revell _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
