Re: Planning features for 3.2

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Frederic Peters <fpeters gnome org> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Have you partied enough already? Are you eager to start tackling 3.2?
> If we follow our usual schedule, we will have 3.1.1 in one month.
> Instead of hurrying back to our tools I'd like to propose to spend
> some of the month planning for features, especially in the areas where
> cross module cooperation is required.
> From Matthias email and others I started assembling a very
> minimalistic list of potential features,
> The pages are currently mostly empty shells, there are currently four
> sections, "description", "involved parties", "current status", and
> "how to help"; certainly people with experience from working on the
> Fedora feature pages, or the Ubuntu blueprints, will have ideas and
> can restructure those.
> Of course you are also free to add new pages, but do note this is not
> a "brainstorm"-type place, in fact I think at some point we will want
> to "freeze" the set of features (but when? in one month?).
> I believe it is really important to get on it soon, to assemble teams,
> with people from the different projects, designers & developers; we
> are still using a six month schedule, this doesn't give us a lot of
> time... So please go on those pages, and if you feel concerned by a
> particular feature, go and edit it.

Hey again,

we've briefly discussed feature planning at todays release team
meeting, and while the details are still being worked out and written
down, the highlights are:

- This feature planning is mainly aimed at the core desktop. Ie if the
feature requires changes to the shell and/or new control-center
panels, it is likely something we want to track here; if it is just a
new dialog in an application, probably not.

- We hope to have a clear idea of the features planned for 3.2 by the
time of the 3.1.1 release, ie in mid-May. 'Clear idea' means at least
some designer input on the user experience, and a rough plan for what
technologies will be used to implement it.

- All major features should have 'owners'. This is not meant to imply
exclusive control, but rather having a person (or persons) who feels
responsible for driving the feature forward. I have added 'Owner'
sections to the feature pages - note that some are still unowned and
up for grabs.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]