[Dev] Re: [Design] Calendar dogfood bugs/enhancements for 0.7
sheila at osafoundation.org
Wed Feb 8 15:30:21 PST 2006
Phlippe, it is probably worth clarifying the definition that Mimi and
I are using for P1-P4 since there is a bit of a difference between
this and how we are prioritizing them for a release (particularly the
P3s and P4s). Maybe the bugzilla priorities aren't going to always
map directly to our priority scale.
P1 - prevents the user from experimenting with the app
P2 - prevents some users from dogfooding the calendar
P3 - stuff we need for a 1.0 calendar - we don't need all this stuff
P4 - stuff we need for a 2.0 calendar - we don't need all this stuff
The P1s and P2s really fall under the 0.7 tenets. Bugs 4947, 3651 and
3492 we still consider required for a 1.0 calendar although we might
decide not to fixe them in 0.7. In any case, we would like to know if
you don't think these should be under the 1.0 calendar bucket or you
just don't think they are a high priority for 0.7? I would prefer we
either defer them to another release rather than lowering the
priority and leaving them in for 0.7. I guess what I am saying is
that at our point of view, they are still P3.
Bug:4535 shouldn't really be under this calendar list at all. I agree
this is an edge case now but when we implement the ability to have
alarms for any type of item (part of the dashboard), people will
likely run into this all the time. We won't be setting alarms for
every 15 min, they will be set for a week in advance, for instance. I
think the right thing to do would be to put it as a P2 for the
dashboard tenet, which it is.
Similarly for the polish bugs, we could do as you suggest or just
defer a number of these. Mimi and I could maybe pick a subset for
0.7. As you indicated, the design team may have the ability to drive
the fixes on these eventually so I am fine with leaving them as is.
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Philippe Bossut wrote:
> Hi Sheila,
> Thanks for going through this triage. I reviewed each bug
> individually and, for the most part, I agree with the statement so
> I went ahead and modified the priorities as you suggested (so I'm
> ccing the dev list so that no one is surprised by this new round of
> I have no issues with the P2 bugs: all need to be addressed in 0.7.
> For the P3, I'm OK for most though there are 4 bugs I think
> shouldn't be raised to P3:
> - Bug:4535 - Reminders with deltas greater than recurrence
> difference might not fire
> This is a rare corner case. There's no data loss really and I doubt
> any user will ever be bugged by such an occurence. P5.
> - Bug 4947 - Reminder dialog flashes on launch
> This is extremely minor and transitory. P4.
> - Bug:3651 - Dragging event in Day view moves entire event into the
> current day
> This happens only in day view and only if an event straddles 2
> days. Rare and no data loss. P5.
> - Bug:3492 - Cursor displays columns in Calendar view as being
> Windows only and really hard to change wx native behavior. P5.
> P3 Visual Polish: There's a smattering of bugs there that are on a
> different level of criticality than all the other P3. Most are
> currently marked P4, some P5 and some are already P3 in Bugzilla. I
> feel that promoting all of them to P3 wholesale is going to dilute
> the sense of urgency for the others (usability, missing features,
> etc...) so I'd rather leave their priorities untouched. I did
> however grabbed some from "Future" and put them back into "0.7".
> For all those Visual Polish issue, I also would prefer to spend
> time on a system for styling the UI (Bug:2981 - Help come up with a
> mechanism to store style info) which is currently a P3 Architecture
> - Philippe
> Sheila Mooney wrote:
>> Mimi and I spent some time last week going through all the dogfood
>> feedback, features and bugs reported so far as well as many of the
>> calendar bugs we have logged in bugzilla from 0.6. We have put
>> together the following wiki page that groups all of these items
>> based on the following prioritization.
>> 1. Bugs/enhancements that prevent a user from experimenting with
>> the app
>> 2. Bugs/enhancements that prevent some users from dogfooding Chandler
>> 3. Nice to haves for a usable calendar
>> 4. Really nice to have for a "super-usable" calendar
>> The known issues in group #1 we are addressing in Chandler 0.6.1.
>> The items in group #2 we hope to prioritize for an early 0.7
>> milestone once we receive scoping/feedback from devs. If there are
>> items people feel are missing or in the "nice-to-have" categories
>> and should be re-prioritized, let us know. Please include some
>> workflows/scenarios to support these.
>> It is reasonable to assume we will receive more feedback/bugs
>> during the course of 0.7 and will update this list accordingly.
>> Our goal is to bucketize what we know about now, get all these
>> spec'd out and scoped.
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
More information about the Dev