linaro-project-management team mailing list archive
-
linaro-project-management team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00716
Re: Rethinking kernel-related roadmap process
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 17:04 -0800, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On 2 March 2012 16:20, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think it might also be useful to track the phases of development as:
> > * Discussion
> > * Development iteration N
> > * Queued for release X.Y
> > * Merged X.Y
>
> The question I have is at what granularity do we track this, i.e,
> does a sub-feature == a patchset?
That's probably a good indicator. If we have more then one patch being
submitted, its likely complicated enough to warrant some tracking (ie:
not a simple fix).
That said, patches.linaro.org is nice for exactly this sort of tracking.
However its a little too broad in the way it does its tracking. I just
wish there was some way to link patches/patch-bundles to blueprints.
thanks
-john
Follow ups
References