On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:07:04AM -0500, Mounir Bsaibes wrote: > > So my question stands: we don't control upstream and can't assign a > > blueprint to a monthly milestone as we don't have control over when it > > will actually land. How should this be handled? > > Should we have another milestone called 'Upstream' for example? (This > milestone would be a place holder milestone similar to the 'Backlog' > milestone)
Conceptually, I think this is a bit bogus. Backlog is an accurate indication of the scheduling of an unstarted blueprint or bug (i.e. its milestone is unknown), whereas a task which is already being worked on has context around it, which would be lost if you just retargeted the task to upstream. And besides, don't you want engineers to want to get better at predicting when their work will be accepted? I get the argument that upstreaming code is hard to predict, but it is definitely not /totally/ chaotic and unpredictable -- if the patch concept is sane then it's a number of interations and then hitting a merge window. There's something of a rhythm to it. It shouldn't take multiple months for most patches to be accepted, and epic patches (see CMA) should be specially planned for. -- Christian Robottom Reis, Engineering VP Brazil (GMT-3) | [+55] 16 9112 6430 | [+1] 612 216 4935 Linaro.org: Open Source Software for ARM SoCs _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~linaro-project-management Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~linaro-project-management More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
