Dataface Tasks
    Heartbeat snapshot (JSON)

    v1.0 stability and defect burn-down

    IDM4_V1_0_LAUNCH-DFT_CORE-01
    Statusnot_started
    Priorityp1
    Milestonem4-v1-0-launch
    Ownerhead-of-engineering

    Problem

    After public launch, the YAML compiler and normalizer will accumulate reported defects from a growing user base, but there is no structured process for tracking defect volume, measuring reliability trends, or prioritizing burn-down. Without a stability program, known bugs pile up without visibility into whether the overall quality trajectory is improving or degrading, and users lose confidence as issues linger without clear resolution timelines.

    Context

    • After launch, recurring defects in the YAML contract, compiler/normalizer, execution adapters, and release/versioning will damage trust faster than new features can restore it, so this phase should prioritize stability over new scope.
    • The goal is to identify the repeat offenders, remove the highest support burden, and make failure patterns measurable enough that the team knows whether quality is improving.
    • Expected touchpoints include dataface/core/, schema/compiled types, docs, and core test suites, bug history, support or incident notes, and any tests or QA gaps that let defects recur.

    Possible Solutions

    • A - Keep mixing bug fixes with feature work opportunistically: preserves flexibility, but lets long-tail reliability work stay perpetually unfinished.
    • B - Recommended: run an explicit stability program: rank defect classes, burn down the highest-frequency issues, and pair fixes with validation so regressions stop recurring.
    • C - Freeze all new work until zero known defects remain: simple in principle, but unrealistic and usually counterproductive.

    Plan

    1. Aggregate the recurring failures in the YAML contract, compiler/normalizer, execution adapters, and release/versioning from bugs, support notes, and recent releases, then rank them by user impact and repeat rate.
    2. Turn the top defect classes into a concrete burn-down list with owners, acceptance criteria, and the validation needed to keep each fix from regressing.
    3. Land or schedule the highest-leverage fixes first, including any docs or operator changes that reduce repeat incidents.
    4. Review the remaining defect mix after the first burn-down pass and update the next tranche of work based on actual stability improvements.

    Implementation Progress

    Review Feedback

    • [ ] Review cleared