harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony M2 schedule
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:00:37 GMT
Sorry for the delay in responding...

Oleg Oleinik wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wonder what is the best way of marking a JIRA issue so we can 'query
>> by goal' without having to embed unreadable tags?
>> Maybe open a JIRA for the 'run a simple Tomcat scenario' and make it
>> dependent upon JIRAs that block that success.  Just thinking aloud...any
>> other ideas?
> IMO good solution. But, Tim, am I correct that more detailed solution is:
> 1 issue per requirement / platform (currently 20 requirements per 1
> platform) is created.
> Issue summaries are unified, like "Win ia32: pass releiability tests"
> or "Lnx ia32: pass simple Tomcat scenario".
> If not having platform in summary, then, how to distinguish
> requirements (and their dependencies) separately for each platform?
> Each such requirement / platform issue has a list of concrete runtime
> issues/bugs that block the given requirement via "blocks" link.
> On Wiki page we have all requirements listed for 1, 2 or 3 platforms
> (a table of 20, 40 or 60 cells). Each cell contains a reference to its
> requirement / platform issue.
> All issues that affect M2 requirements are linked via "blocks" link to
> its requirement / platform issue (if a bug is severe blocker, then, it
> should be linked to up to 60 issues...).
> ?

You are starting to scare me<g>  This looks like a lot of book-keeping
for a problem that nobody seems to have yet.

Let's work with the declared goals for M2, and if we find that life
would have been easier if we had spent time updating this 'metadata'
then we can talk about how to do it more efficiently.


View raw message