| 4.0/3.3 replan impact on 4.1 requirements cycle [message #16119] |
Wed, 13 April 2005 22:46  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael.Norman.scapatech.com
Following the chanegs to TPTP 3.3 and 4.0 we need to do a number of
things to ensure that the activity in 4.1 is appropriately targeted and
prioritized. The basic picture is that a lot of things have been
bounced out of these earlier releases and might be candidates for
inclusion in 4.1. However, a lot of features have already been targeted
and prioritized for 4.1. If you add it all up it seems to come to
roughly twice the available resource over the 4.1 timeperiod of three
months. We are not moving the date of 4.1, so something obviously has to
give.
Another rather unfortunate issue is that the date of 4.2 has not been
set, we are waiting till after the Eclipse Council meetings in May, and
4.2 may be as long as 6 months after 4.1, i.e. March next year, so if
something that was bounced out of 3.3 ends up in 4.2 it could be almost
a year late.
In practice the world has changed so much since the various targets and
priorities were set that we are going to have to review all priorities
and targets at this stage. We are also going to take this opportunity to
tighten up the requirements and architectural review of enhancement
requests as they come through the process.
Basically, if the architecture review doesn't produce a description
document and sizing the enhancemnent request will not make it into 4.1,
and if the requirement itself isn't well-articulated going into the
architectural review, the architecture group isn't going to waste much
time on the review process. This may sound arbitrary and callous, but
the enhancments without description documents were the source of a lot
of problems in 3.3 and 4.0, and in turn that often resulted from
poorly-articulated requirements.
So, this is what is going to happen.
1) Anything currently targeted to 4.1 and undergoing architectural
review will continue through that process to completion
2) Anything previously targeted to 3.3 or 4.0 (in the case of things
that were pending in these releases this does not include those that
were also targeted to 4.1) will be subject to architectural review in
roughly 2 weeks time. In the meantime we seek additional clarification
of requirements on these requests from those who initiated them or have
an interest in them. This can be fed in through Bugzilla (to which the
originator will have write access) and/or the description docuement (to
which the originator may not have access) annd will be merged into the
description document by the relevant committer during or before the
architectural review proess.
3) The targeting and prioritization of all of the above enhancment
requests will be reconsidered. I will put a list into the Active list
tab on the plan pages of the TPTP web site on Friday. I will post again
when this has happened. Thereafter I will solicit requests to re-target
and re-prioritize from Requirements Group reresentatives or directly to
me for those individuals/organizations not represented on the RG. Note
that since targets may be extended and priorities reduced in this
process, we will need to iterate this over a number of sequences to make
sure that we are all happy.
This is important, and we remain committed to transparency in this whole
process.
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: 4.0/3.3 replan impact on 4.1 requirements cycle [message #16202 is a reply to message #16119] |
Sun, 17 April 2005 12:40  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael.Norman.scapatech.com
Team,
I have just posted a list of the enhancemnt requests under consideration
for 4.1 It proved quite tricky to directly identify exactly what had
bounced out of 3.3 and 4.1 so this list is a combination of the current
state of the architectural review output (for enhancemnt requests that
were previously targeted by the RG for 4.1) and a bugzilla query for
target <=4.1 and Milestone = ---
If there is anything missing please get back to me.
Although I have posted on the RG Active tab on the feature plan, because
of some complexities of the way the filtering works on the underlying
XML data, there is more data visible if you access it via another route.
It is directly accessed at
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/featureplans/r gactive.xml
or via the current review list link on the contribution page -
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/general/contri butor.html
If you go via this route you will see some preliminary aggregated sizing
data. There is definitely more sizing data available that I haven't
been able to fold into the aggregations (and I will work to getting this
data in for the next time I post), but the key number is 421.5
person-weeks of work, in the data we have from 80 enhanamcent requests
that have been through a 4.1 architectural review out of a total of 219
enhancement requests under consideration. Since we need additional
resource to service bugs, builds, newsgroups, etc. and the iteration is
13 weeks long, this means we are already oversubscribed before we add
back anything that got bounced from 4.0 or 3.3.
So, I urgently need fedback on what can be bounced out of 4.1. Please
be brutal. I need this review to terminate by the 29th of April. In
the last week of April I will schedule an RG meeting to discuss what
additional brutality is required. In particular for those enhancemnt
requests which were bounced from 4.0 or 3.3, we will need a clear
articulation of the requirement in either the description docuemnt or
the bugzilla request.
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: 4.0/3.3 replan impact on 4.1 requirements cycle [message #16216 is a reply to message #16202] |
Sun, 17 April 2005 12:59 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael.Norman.scapatech.com
I was trying to get this out with my children breathing over the screen,
so a few little glitches got in. Hopefully this corrects them all
Mike
Michael.Norman@scapatech.com wrote:
> Team,
>
> I have just posted a list of the enhancemnt requests under
consideration for 4.1 It proved quite tricky to directly identify
exactly what had bounced out of 3.3 and 4.1
[should be 3.3 and 4.0]
> so this list is a combination of the current state of the
architectural review output (for enhancemnt requests that were
previously targeted by the RG for 4.1) and a bugzilla query for target
<=4.1
The Bugzilla field is usually referred to as Version
> and Milestone = ---
The Bugzilla field is usually referred to as Target Milestone
>
> If there is anything missing please get back to me.
>
> Although I have posted on the RG Active tab on the feature plan,
because of some complexities of the way the filtering works on the
underlying XML data, there is more data visible if you access it via
another route. It is directly accessed at
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/featureplans/r gactive.xml
> or via the current review list link on the contribution page -
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/general/contri butor.html
>
> If you go via this route you will see some preliminary aggregated
sizing data. There is definitely more sizing data available that I
haven't been able to fold into the aggregations (and I will work to
getting this data in for the next time I post), but the key number is
421.5 person-weeks of work, in the data we have from 80 enhanamcent
requests that have been through a 4.1 architectural review out of a
total of 219 enhancement requests under consideration. Since we need
additional resource to service bugs, builds, newsgroups, etc. and the
iteration is 13 weeks long
[there are two iterations in the release together coming to 13 weeks]
> , this means we are already oversubscribed before we add back
anything that got bounced from 4.0 or 3.3.
>
> So, I urgently need fedback on what can be bounced out of 4.1.
Please be brutal. I need this review to terminate by the 29th of April.
In the last week of April I will schedule an RG meeting to discuss
what additional brutality is required. In particular for those
enhancemnt requests which were bounced from 4.0 or 3.3, we will need a
clear articulation of the requirement in either the description docuemnt
or the bugzilla request.
>
> Mike
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01540 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
