|
|
| Line 55: |
Line 55: |
| ** accept | | ** accept |
|
| |
|
| 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.
| | Please see the [[Talk:Triage|discussion page]] for ideas about how to improve the Triage process. |
|
| |
|
| ==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?
| |
|
| |
|
| [[Category:Developer]] | | [[Category:Developer]] |