On Fri, Mar 02, 2012, Deepak Saxena wrote: > I propose we track our deliverables > against kernel merge windows and break roadmap items into smaller > chunks that across multiple windows.
It's a great idea; interestingly, in discussions around a new roadmap process Kiko is also proposing tracking the upstreaming of kernel patchsets as a core part of the process. You're completely right that we should plan upstream deliverables against the upstream release trains. For certain features, members care more about this or that feature being implemented in an upstream kernel -- "the right way" -- even if it takes longer; this would fit these cases nicely. For other features they need to know at which date they will be able to consume some production-ready patchset, even if it's not fully upstreamed yet; this is because they need to plan their own product trains. Kiko pointed out that we currently lack good history around patchsets/features we're developing; we have cards tracking the high level idea, sometimes verbose workitems with blueprints, and of course there are mailing-list discussions, but it's hard to answer questions such as: * when/where were current and previous versions/iterations of the patchset published? * roughly, how far are we from being in mainline? * when/where will the next version/iteration of the patchset be published? Let's take some time later today in our call to discuss this further :-) -- Loïc Minier _______________________________________________ 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
