launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Guilherme Salgado <guilherme.salgado@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Francis,

On 06/02/12 13:57, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> On 12-02-03 02:28 PM, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So, we had a chat with Matt earlier this week and while we work on the
> > user-testing for the team-based report we'd like to present our plan to
> > migrate the work items from the whiteboard to the new table. This is
> > roughly how we see this happening:
> Hi Salgado,
>
> It's great to see you and Linaro contribute this to Launchpad.
>
> I don't think Matt raised that already with you, but there is a new
> policy under discussion that might have an impact on that project:
> https://dev.launchpad.net/PolicyAndProcess/MaintenanceCosts
>
> This will clearly add to the maintenance costs of Launchpad (it's one of
> the primary benefit to Linaro, so that more of the work-item tracker is
> maintained in Launchpad instead of your own tools). Can you investigate
> the possibility of offsetting some maintenance costs elsewhere so that
> overall this new feature becomes a neutral addition to our maintenance
> burden?
I think that would be fine; I'll try to confirm today or tomorrow and 
will let you know.
BTW, I had a quick look at some blueprints bugs and found 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/735970 (+specworkload times 
out for teams).
After some investigation it turns out that +specworkload shows, for a 
person, the same BPs that are shown on blueprints.lp.net/~person. The 
difference being that the former has extra columns for the role the 
person plays on that BP and the latter has a way to filter the list. For 
teams +specworkload shows a list of team members with a BP table for 
every member whereas bp.lp.net/~team shows only the BPs where the team 
itself is the assignee/drafter/approver. I'm thinking that maybe we 
could get rid of +specworkload and change the default BlueprintLayer 
page for teams to include specs where the team members play a role as 
well, just in case anyone actually uses +specworkload and objects to it 
being removed.
So, do you think this would be a change that would offset the 
maintenance costs added by our work-item stuff?
Cheers,

--
Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>