[Pulp-dev] Roadmap Challenges

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Thu Mar 29 19:13:51 UTC 2018

I want to start a discussion around how Pulp does roadmap planning and some
of our current challenges. This is the pre-discussion part of a future PUP.
I want to collaborate on characterizing the problems first before we
discuss solutions.

# The surface problem statement

It very difficult for external stakeholders to answer some simple questions
about any given feature:

* How would a user use this feature exactly?
* Is it completed? If not, how much is left to do?
* Which release is this going in?
* Has this feature been fully planned and accepted as a committed to piece
of work?

# deeper problems

I believe there are two deeper problems contributing to the problem above.

1. Any given feature is typically spread across multiple Redmine tickets.
There may be the first implementation, followup changes, adjustments,
bugfixes, reworks, docs followups, etc. This makes it practically hard to
have the information necessary to answer the first 3 questions ^.

2. Devs of core or a plugin have no clear way to clearly signal that a
feature has been fully planned and is committed to. The 'sprint' field has
been used heretofore, but the recent feedback suggests that mechanism may
not be the best way to indicate that work has been fully planned and
accepted. We need a clear way to answer the last question ^.

Do you agree or disagree with these problem statements? Do you have
anything to add about the problem statements?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180329/7c28f7da/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list