Launchpad Entry: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/foo/+spec/bar
This section should include a paragraph describing the end-user impact of this change. It is meant to be included in the release notes of the first release in which it is implemented. (Not all of these will actually be included in the release notes, at the release manager's discretion; but writing them is a useful exercise.)
It is mandatory.
You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.
This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:
Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this
Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.
- data migration, if any
- redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
- how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.
It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.
This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.
This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.
BoF agenda and discussion
Linaro have missing configs on various flavours. Configs are bascially chosen by the originator of the board. They need a way to maintain these configs for many uise cases on many boards. Whats there now is not enough.
The current 'enforce' is a start, but only covers a small number of configs.
Kernel config policy for linaro:
Looking to ensure that all the boards are supported, and that the options the s/w needs are enabled, but also allow the consumer to also modify them based on their user needs.
Looking to split the configs into h/w specific and non-h/w sp ecific. With layerable rules to select configuration items.
Need baseline rules for example:
- need IPV4/IPV6 need all filesystems only need this filesystem on this machine
Would like to build less kernels, on arm they have per board kernels. Would like to have an OMAP kernel not 3 and 4 etc. But would also want to optimise.
Distro has the same problem we have h/w specific configs and 'ubuntu' defaults for things like filesystems. We have a set of rules but they are maintained eternally and applied manually.
Much discussion of what we could do. Need something layered so we can define defaults and layer over the top.
Will be a follow up session ...
- determine whether upstream would allow classification of dependancies (machine specific, generic)
Specs/KernelConfigurationManagement (last modified 2010-11-17 21:03:38)