On 19 May 2011 10:43, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > Also, some of the feedback from UDS sessions included features that > could arguably be considered part of our blueprints, but go beyond > what was originally their scope. For example, one user asked for > GDB tracepoints to be also supported with native debugging, and > one asked for enhancements to cross-debugging the kernel via KGDB. > > At this point it is not clear whether there is anything we can do > about those requirements during this cycle, but I think we should > keep track of them to make sure they're not forgotten.
My feeling is that these should be new blueprints (or proto-blueprints on a wiki page) since they're really separate features. What I found last cycle was that I had a few mega-blueprints which just accumulated new work items across the cycle and then at the end had a number of things postponed. This time round I'm trying for much more tightly focused blueprints so it's clearer that some features are finished and some are not (and that some features are high priority and some are more wishlist). I haven't yet figured out how or if bugs should fit into the blueprint and work item setup. -- PMM _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
