10,561
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New page: Certainly areas of potential improvement is in regard to defining appropriate tags for Milestones and Components, and coming up with a list of keywords that we can agree to the meaning of....
Certainly areas of potential improvement is in regard to defining appropriate tags for Milestones and Components, and coming up with a list of keywords that we can agree to the meaning of.
==Questions==
Would it make sense to have a Sugar '''milestone''' (e.g., Sugar 0.82) that is distinct from the OLPC milestones? Or would it make more sense to have a Sugar '''version''' that maps to an OLPC milestone?
Would it make sense to consistently add '''keywords''' that map to the Sugar modules or should these be '''components'''?
* sugar
* sugar-base
* sugar-datastore
* sugar-presence-service
* sugar-toolkit
* sugar-artwork
* sugar-activity
** journal-activity
** chat-activity
** ''et alia''
The assignment of '''priorities''' is the difficult one. We need to come up with definitions and a process. A first pass:
:Blocker: catastrophic failure—Sugar will not run or user experience severely impaired (new features would rarely, if ever, fall into this category)
:High: important to Sugar user experience—either in terms of performance or usability (these would typically be coupled with the "task" ticket type)
:Med: enhancements to non-core features (or enhancements that impact individual activities)
:Low: odds and ends
Would it be possible to assign teams to each ticket, where we identify up front someone who agrees to '''verify''' a ticket, and someone who agrees to test a fix? Maybe we can accumulate a list of volunteers who'd be willing to be assigned in a work-wheel-like system?
==Questions==
Would it make sense to have a Sugar '''milestone''' (e.g., Sugar 0.82) that is distinct from the OLPC milestones? Or would it make more sense to have a Sugar '''version''' that maps to an OLPC milestone?
Would it make sense to consistently add '''keywords''' that map to the Sugar modules or should these be '''components'''?
* sugar
* sugar-base
* sugar-datastore
* sugar-presence-service
* sugar-toolkit
* sugar-artwork
* sugar-activity
** journal-activity
** chat-activity
** ''et alia''
The assignment of '''priorities''' is the difficult one. We need to come up with definitions and a process. A first pass:
:Blocker: catastrophic failure—Sugar will not run or user experience severely impaired (new features would rarely, if ever, fall into this category)
:High: important to Sugar user experience—either in terms of performance or usability (these would typically be coupled with the "task" ticket type)
:Med: enhancements to non-core features (or enhancements that impact individual activities)
:Low: odds and ends
Would it be possible to assign teams to each ticket, where we identify up front someone who agrees to '''verify''' a ticket, and someone who agrees to test a fix? Maybe we can accumulate a list of volunteers who'd be willing to be assigned in a work-wheel-like system?