Re: Xaraya Aruba 1.2 roadmap open for comments

Marcel van der Boom wrote:

> I have a couple of questions/remarks:
> 
> - general: i think i dont understand the relation between the name  
> 'aruba', the 'minor version' and the 'roadmap'. I am used to a roadmap  
> which transcends 'versions', 'releases' and 'line names'. Am I to  
> interpret this roadmap as a task list for minor version 1.2 release  
> completion, part of the 1.x series which are all called 'aruba'? [the  
> page says "Xaraya Aruba 1.3.0" for example]

1x == Aruba
2x == Jamaica

These roadmaps will evolve over time.  Toward the end of the development 
cycle for 1.2, the 1.3 planning will begin.

> 
> - M2 is mentioned twice, typo?

Yes, fixed.

> 
> - given the icon handling proposal, perhaps an RFC would be  appropriate 
> and determine how we would do this? The 2.x core could use  a similar 
> technique, I think it would be smart to create something  which is 
> applicable to both series.

When an RFC or something similar is produced, for icons or anything 
else, it will be considered.  "I want to use sprites instead of separate 
files" is nowhere near detailed enough to warrant consideration.

However, our historical RFC format may be thrown out in favor of some 
other means which is easier to work with.

> - the roadmap is somewhat 'thin' on functionality and 'thick' on  
> presentation, which is fine obviously,but what are the functionality  
> priorities, perhaps one abstraction level higher than the roadmap shown?

IIRC, 1.1 was thinner than this in general.  Functionality is no longer 
defined only by what happens in PHP on the back end.

We will assess all the input at the end of the discussion period.  What 
can be planned out and get done in a timely fashion will be included. 
There is no clear timeline for a final release of Jamaica yet, so Aruba 
will continue until Jamaica gets closer.  We know jamaica is coming, so 
we're not going to make far reaching plans for Aruba.

There is no higher level roadmap.

M2 (icons) is represented in the iconify scenario, and I have mostly 
completed M1 (installer rebrand) on top of that.

> - what are the plans with respect to the two series of development we  
> have? Are we keeping the two separate?

They have always been separate, why change that now?

> 
> - is this list in sync with the roadmap?  ⇢ http://www.xaraya.com/todo
>   [open bugs to target 1.2]

Where did that list come from?  Are you nominating those bugs for 1.2?

> 
> More a remark than a question, but given the scenarios that went into  
> 2.x starting with 1.x:
>   - db middle layer (creole)
>   - exceptions (M7 ?)
>   - object rewrite of core API
>   - DD overhaul
>   - php5only constructs
>   - performance improvements
>   - blocklayout corrections
>   - compiler rewrite
>   - mls changes
>   - xd⇢xt changes (M2 ?)
>   - db modelrefactoring
>   - db transaction support
>   - directory layout changes in preparation for deployment/multisite
>   - … (probably a bit more, but the above is by head)
> 
> Some, or maybe many, could be backported to 1.x. Apart from the PHP4  
> limitation which is now gone(?) I've always been hesitant to do that  
> because it means duplication of work for the most part, but seeing 1.x  
> and 2.x grow further apart over time does no good to anyone (community  
> wise).

The intent is to move 1x forward from what it is now, because 1x and 2x 
are too different now to backport some, if any, 2x changes.  I'm not 
interested in duplucation of work unless it is new work that can be 
applied to both lines.

The PHP4 limitation will remain until there are people willing to comb 
through everything and fully remove it.

> 
> If the wish is to *NOT* backport many of these scenarios to 1.x, it  may 
> be better to formally split 2.x off perhaps?

IMO, 2x was formally split off when it began.  Based on that, it's too 
late (and not worth the effort) to go back and incrementally transform 
1x into 2x.  1x will continue on its path parallel to 2x on its path, 
until 2x is ready for a formal 2.0.0 release.

> 
> If we *DO* want to backport most of what is there, why not start with  
> those? They're easy wins and have seen a good portion of testing  already.

If any of those get backported, only the easiest wins will happen, such 
as xd -> xt.

The people who are going to do the work get to define what work gets 
done and when.

> 
> marcel
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 mrt 2009, at 05:58, Marty Vance wrote:
> 
>> The PMC, as Aruba (1x) Team Lead, has published a tentative roadmap (
>> http://www.xaraya.com/index.php/xarpages/development/ aruba_roadmap )for
>> the next Aruba release, 1.2.
>>
>> Please refer to the Terminology (
>> http://www.xaraya.com/index.php/xarpages/development/terminology ) and
>> Development Cycle (
>> http://www.xaraya.com/index.php/xarpages/development/cycle ) pages in
>> the new Development section (
>> http://www.xaraya.com/index.php/xarpages/development ). Xaraya Aruba  1.2
>> is a Minor Release.
>>
>> This roadmap describes what we feel should be done in 1.2, and we are
>> now seeking feedback and suggestions from the community for additional
>> items.
>>
>> Please reply here with detailed proposals, or links to specific  bugs. If
>> there is not a bug already in Bugzilla which describes an issue,
>> enhancement, or new feature you wish to see added, please file a  file a
>> new bug targeted at version 1.2, at http://bugs.xaraya.com/enter_bug.cgi
>>
>> The discussion period for this roadmap will be open until Midnight GMT
>> on 14 April 2008. At that time, the roadmap will be updated to reflect
>> the results of the dicussion period, then locked.
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel