your thoughts wanted on bzr team UDD focus

[Martin Pool]

2009/12/4 Francis J. Lacoste <francis.lacoste at canonical.com>:
> On December 3, 2009, Martin Pool wrote:
>> If there are existing bugs relevant to udd, or you know of
>> appropriately concrete and self-contained things that can be filed as
>> bugs, then tagging them and/or mentioning them here would be helpful.
>> It would give us something to be getting on with.  But I agree the
>> larger issues are too broad to make useful bugs now.  (One could have
>> placeholder bugs like "work out what to do about X" but I doubt that
>> helps.)
>>
>
> Actually, given the workflow you guys seem to favour, I think it might be
> sense. Otherwise, how to do you track and make sure that somebody drives the
> requirements process on these larger issues?

Momentum on the udd list, plus James's specs?  Or maybe we should do
it, at least as bugs against the udd project.

So I'll refine that position a bit to: those bugs are ok as long as
they're things we've agreed are reasonably in scope and things we're
actively working on.  If they're not being worked on, they just seems
like clutter that causes confusion later on.  (It's not quite the same
thing but Brian's confusion to do with finding old Launchpad
blueprints about communication which are half-implemented or obsolete
or generally detached from reality is the kind of thing I'd like to
avoid.)  Bugs which are not clearly falsifiable and not moving towards
being clear are a drag.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>