On 10/06/11 23:20, Anas Nashif wrote:
> What exactly are you referring to here that has not been upstreamed? Most of
> the work being done in the above mentioned project are new participants. The
> only big changes are to IMGer, but there are loads of reasons for doing so.
Just that - the big changes in IMGer and the participant and a few small changes
too. We would have been happy to discuss them and look for a joint solution.
Today we have two image generation tools and participants and two lots of work
being carried out on an 'osc library'. I also saw independent clones of other
tools like BOSS and some of the supporting libraries - I wrote this email hoping
to halt this divergence and find a way to collaborate before we diverge too
much. Li Yi is already now talking about the boss-plugin with me so that's a
great start; thanks.
On 11/06/11 05:40, Carsten Munk wrote:
On 10 Jun 2011, at 22:00, David Greaves wrote:
So... what do you think? Can I expect some more communication and some
proposed patches?
Yes, sure. Communication goes both ways as we know. When did you last ask
MeeGo release engineering about their requirements and input to the above?
Every 2-4 weeks at our planning meetings in Nokia I'd ask our MeeGo reps if they
had any requests from MeeGo RE. I say this so you know I tried. So maybe it's my
fault and I should have sent an email out directly? Anyway ... now here we are.
Where are all of those requirements and plans mentioned above are coming
from btw?
Ongoing support and requirements from Nokia for 'other internal use'; lessons
learnt in supporting the now defunct Nokia/MeeGo product deployment; the N900 CE
deployment.
Anas raises a good point - there seems to be no defined feature process or
even referred to a place where discussion can go on in :)
I'd propose the following:
* Tie the project somewhere in the MeeGo project - it already seems to be a
MeeGo infrastructure tools project, so mark clearly it's a cross vendor
project - it's confusing that the page starts with "Nokia OBS" picture
OK.
* Mark clearly on http://wiki.meego.com/Release_Infrastructure/BOSS that
(proposed) location of discussion around BOSS is at meego-distribution-tools@
mailing list
Yep - I actually asked for the scope of this list to be extended to include our
products; then when we finally got to the point where we were using/releasing
code I'd forgotten about it.
* Establish a featurezilla of sorts for BOSS features (like we have for MCTS
and MWTS) and use the same model as MeeGo does, that is:
- Submit a feature description. People/companies can state if they'd like to
commit resources to do a feature by providing an assignee and a timeframe. If
there's a assignee, it can go on a roadmap.
Yep - this was done inside Nokia. I did the wiki roadmap to extract some of the
concepts we'd planned.
- Have -all- stakeholder feedback go into the same process, that means Nokia,
MeeGo RE, MeeGo Apps, whoever.
Seems reasonable.
* Monthly (IRC?) meeting of roadmap review, indicating which features can go
into the codebase in next release/which won't make it
Thoughts?
Thanks - useful to have that pointed out ... it's not obvious that it is missing
when you're inside the project.
I don't have any objections to any of those points.
David
--
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
