Post by Marcel van der Boom- 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.
Post by Marcel van der Boom- M2 is mentioned twice, typo?
Yes, fixed.
Post by Marcel van der Boom- 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.
Post by Marcel van der Boom- 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.
Post by Marcel van der Boom- 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?
Post by Marcel van der Boom- 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?
Post by Marcel van der BoomMore a remark than a question, but given the scenarios that went into
- 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.
Post by Marcel van der BoomIf 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.
Post by Marcel van der BoomIf 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.
Post by Marcel van der Boommarcel
Post by Marty VanceThe 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.