On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:40:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > If we're going to do up-front planning for the whole six months then > yes, I think we definitely need to leave time for the planning stage. > I don't think it matters whether we do it at what's conceptually > the "end" of the cycle or the "beginning", as long as we don't > try to schedule "six months work and one month's planning" into > six months of realtime...
You are right that it doesn't matter if the planning is at what is conceptually the beginning or end, because no matter how you see it, the previous cycle is already finished. On the other hand, it does matter if the planning happens during the cycle (one month before the end in our case), because it disrupts it. Right now the planning periods are fixed in time and we are not aligned to them. We all know how costly unaligned accesses can be ;) > The other idea is that perhaps we could bring the planning more into > line with the 'monthly cadence' instead, so that we spread planning/TSC > direction/feedback throughout the cycle rather than doing it only > twice a year. I don't know whether that's feasible. I agree with Mounir's thoughts: it is essential to have a medium-term (6 month) vision that can be used as a guide when trying to make decisions. One month is great for tactics, but it is too short for forming a coherent and solid strategy. Thanks, Alexandros _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
