Mark Wedel wrote: > 1) What is the target date for a 2.0 release? It can't be 'when all the cool > stuff is done', as then it never happens - always something new to add, etc - > some general date has to targeted. I had previously mentioned shooting for > end > of this calendar year. > Well, I think that targeting a general date may not be the best solution, and a better one would be having a feature-based target. Essentially based upon the sort of things you talk about below. We just need to limit the number of "must have" things to be reasonable and wait till we have those, and a few "nice to have" things. > 2) What are the 'must have', 'nice to have', and 'not really important' > features > to target for that release? The wiki - > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo:cf2.0 - sort of covers that by > high/medium/low priorities. Does code restructuring fall into high category? > There is a code cleanup which is high, but I had envisioned that to be a bit > more modest than what is being talked about now. > > Depending on the timeframe would determine how many can really be done in the > targeted time. > I think the real question is, how 'big' do we want 2.0 to be? How much justifies a major version number? The answer to that, affects what features we should target to have in 2.0, and that dictates the timeframe. At the same time though, the timeframe does affect the other parts, it isn't just a one way chain, as we have to also make sure the features are reasonable to complete within a "reasonable" timeframe. What it really is, is not a question of how much can be done in a timeframe, or how 'big' we want it. It is a matter of weighing how 'big' we want it, against what timeframe is "reasonable". Balances are always so much harder to weigh than simple one way relationships ;)
Another issue though, is due to the way that crossfire has released in the past, releases with minor version number increments are a mixture of bugfixes, minor features, and major features. One question is, what will make the difference between 1.9 and 2.0 so different from 1.7 and 1.8? Really, I don't see how anything that has happened or is planned for 2.0, will really make the change so much bigger than the difference between 1.7 and 1.8. For an even better example, the difference between the releases where the skills system changed a bunch, is probably much more worthy of a major version change, than what is currently planned for 2.0 IMHO. Personally, the only way I can see things changing enough in a single release to in my opinion warrant a 2.0, is if we start keeping a "stable" branch in CVS and have that used for minor releases, or if something either in code and/or gameplay undergoes a major (in a loose sense) restructure. Alex Schultz _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
