On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Ilias Biris wrote:
> Picking up this subject again, here is a wiki page with the ideas
> mentioned in the thread and (currently) my comments on those ideas:
>
>
> https://wiki.linaro.org/ProjectManagement/ParkingLot/DevelopmentCycleProposal
>
>
> You can check out
Picking up this subject again, here is a wiki page with the ideas
mentioned in the thread and (currently) my comments on those ideas:
https://wiki.linaro.org/ProjectManagement/ParkingLot/DevelopmentCycleProposal
You can check out the proposals, correct if there is anything
wrong/missing, and add
Agreed.
On 26 May 2011 11:12, James Westby wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:54:18 +0300, Alexandros Frantzis
> wrote:
>> 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
>
> I can certainly say that trying to have a release in the same week as
> the deadline for drafting specs/workitems and creating slides
On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:54:18 +0300, Alexandros Frantzis
wrote:
> 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
I can certainly say that trying to have a release in the same week as
the deadline for drafting specs/workitems and creating slides for the
public plan reviews has been a strain.
At the very le
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ilias Biris wrote:
> On 19/05/11 14:19, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> Sure. As I understand the idea of an agile product backlog, though,
>> you don't necessarily do full investigation and planning on every
>> item in it (in the way that at the moment we do full down-
On 19/05/11 14:19, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> Sure. As I understand the idea of an agile product backlog, though,
> you don't necessarily do full investigation and planning on every
> item in it (in the way that at the moment we do full down-to-the-work-item
> blueprints for everything at the start
On 17 May 2011 15:12, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> [moving planning away from six-month cycles]
> Not sure how this can be accomplished without also spreading the 6 months
> disruption to monthly disruptions.
> It is better to have a longe
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 o
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Alexandros Frantzis
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
> here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
>
> Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
> This is done so that
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Mounir Bsaibes
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
>> wrote:
>> > So my questions/suggestions are:
>> >
>> > 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
>>
>> From a working group perspect
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
> wrote:
> > So my questions/suggestions are:
> >
> > 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
>
> From a working group perspective, the Ubuntu cycle isn't very
> significant -- everything we do is on on
On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
wrote:
> So my questions/suggestions are:
>
> 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
From a working group perspective, the Ubuntu cycle isn't very
significant -- everything we do is on one month cycles except
for the planning-and-UDS bit.
> 3. If we don't
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Alexandros Frantzis <
alexandros.frant...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
> here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
>
> Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by
W dniu 17.05.2011 10:54, Alexandros Frantzis pisze:
Hi all,
I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
This is done so that the Linaro release
In the PMWG, that is what we ended up doing. 1 week before LDS,
everything that was still pending was postponed to the next cycle so
that work could begin in earnest on planning and *thinking* about the
goals for the next cycle.
With the proposed monthly releases, I guess the cadence with Ubuntu
b
To add to Alexandros' thoughts, we typically have our public plan
reviews a couple of weeks after LDS, which means that for the most
part, all engineering blueprints for the coming cycle must be done by
then (before then for the benefit of those compiling the slides, etc.
for the plan reviews ;-).
Hi all,
I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
This is done so that the Linaro releases are based on a stable system.
Unfortunately, this s
17 matches
Mail list logo
