Can we have better blueprint tracking?

[Game_boy]

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty

Blueprint statuses for the Intrepid cycle, and all previous ones, were not always maintained. Most of them were not updated until quite recently, and even then few are listed as "Implemented", "Deferred" or dropped, which should be their only status at this point. We still don't know the completion level of over half of the Intrepid features!

To better allow the community to know what features have been and are going to be done, I think the Jaunty blueprint page should be updated frequently right from when blueprints appear.

[agurk]

+1

[plun]

I like the Fedora way to present this.....

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/10/FeatureList

[bash]

I agree, there definitly needs to be a better way that the blueprints are handled. Most cycles I have seen so far it was more or less ok, but in the Intrepid Blueprints weren't even fully up till Alpha 3 or 4. Lots of random Ideas from users were listed as Blueprints (some of them quite nice) that later got removed by the Devs.

The Fedora style page seems like a nice touch. Would also make it easier for less involved people to quickly find out what planned for the next release. Of course just because it's listed there doesn't mean it will actually be in the release, so maybe just add a small disclaimer at the beginning and make a Fedora style goal page for Ubuntu (although some Ubuntu haters are going to complain then again that Ubuntu just takes everything from Fedora ;))

[olskar]

I agree,

I quote myself;

I would also, again, like to suggest something to be added.

I talked to cjwatson on #ubuntu-dev about the problem that many non-developers make blueprints of things they are not able to capable of doing. I have seen lots of blueprints containing nothing but a link to a brainstormidea. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the idea of
blueprints, they are (or rather should be) detailed software design documents.

There has been a trend for people to follow up to all wishlist bugs and say that they should be blueprints, and it's completely wrong - complex things that require careful design work sometimes merit being blueprints, but simple enhancements don't.

[UbuWu]

Also some blueprints that were deferred for a certain version just get totally abandoned instead of getting replanned for the next version like I think they should.

[Changturkey]

Also some blueprints that were deferred for a certain version just get totally abandoned instead of getting replanned for the next version like I think they should.
I was thinking about that too. +1.

[Game_boy]

Also some blueprints that were deferred for a certain version just get totally abandoned instead of getting replanned for the next version like I think they should.

That too. "Deferred" seems to be dev speak for "I'll never have time to do this."

[Slug71]

+1
Fedora way looks good.

[gaspard.leon]

+1
Yeah I watch the blueprints page with anticipation, but it never seems to get much updating after a certain point.

in fact it can be hard to get an idea what's in the pipeline for the next release without aggregating various news sources like planet ubuntu, forums, and IRC/mailing lists...

but whatever as long as the releases are high-quality, I don't mind too much... better blueprinting would be nice.

G

[Slug71]

I see the Blueprints still suck. Nothing in there about Packagekit either?