Okay, I see what you are going. Some issues have people working on them, some do not.
How about we add a "responsible person" to the items that have someone in charge already, and mark others as open? Associating a responsible person (that need not be the one that does all the work, but the one that supervises the issue) may be a good idea in general. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@apache.org> wrote: > Having an estimate assigned to an issue might give the impression that it > is already assigned to somebody. > This would not help to find external contributors who are interested in > helping with a certain feature. > > Issues without estimates are still useful as they show in which direction > the project plans to evolve. > > 2015-01-08 11:13 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>: > > > The Pig Journal is nice, we could have this evolve into something like > > that. > > > > I think that we need to give some time estimate on the features / issues. > > Otherwise, it is of rather little value - all it says is that people > > thought about that, no one knows when you can plan with it. > > > > We can coarsen the time estimates, though... > > > > Stephan > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I very much like the "PIG Journal" here: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PIG/Pig+Journal > > > Its basically a nice view (however outdated in that case) on whats > going > > on > > > in the PIG community. You can see finished features on the top, current > > > features being developed in the middle and ideas in the end. > > > > > > The document posted by Stephan is a good start to create a "Flink > > Journal". > > > I agree with Fabian that the estimates are very optimistic. > Implementing > > > all these features including unit tests, documentation and testing a > > takes > > > a lot of time. > > > I would suggest to only add estimates (finish dates) to features which > > are > > > currently work in progress. > > > The remainder ("ideas") can have time estimates in months but should > not > > > have finish dates. Similarly to Pig, we should put a disclaimer on top > > that > > > we do not guarantee for any feature being developed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I think the roadmap should show the long-term development goals of > > Flink, > > > > i.e., show that we are going for a ML library, SQL support, > > > Batch-Streaming > > > > integration, etc. > > > > > > > > Right now, it is quite detailed and with very optimistic time > > estimates, > > > > IMO. > > > > If we would do everything in time, we would be done with the roadmap > in > > > Q3 > > > > 2015... > > > > I would not even put a time on all issues, esp. on things which > depend > > on > > > > other developments (which might not even have started). Also I would > > make > > > > the estimates more coarse-grained. For short-term goals we could use > > > > quarters, everything does not need an estimate, IMO. Issues that will > > be > > > > solved in two months don't even need to be listed. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-01-08 7:50 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > I added some text about my work on the Logical Query feature. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone! > > > > > > > > > > > > It is time we bring the Flink roadmap up to speed with what has > > > > happened > > > > > in > > > > > > the last months and what further goals features ideas have come > up. > > > > > > > > > > > > The link below leads to a Google Doc that contains an initial set > > of > > > > > > suggestions that some of the committers have come up with. Please > > > share > > > > > > your opinion on those suggestions and feel free to suggest > > additional > > > > > items > > > > > > to put on the roadmap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QZ0NJC03pOBqE6vbK1Ot4bXwoBcszIqzbZ8a6B5vSEo/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > This is specifically open to everyone, not only committers. The > > link > > > > > should > > > > > > allow everyone to add suggestions and comments to the doc (but > not > > to > > > > > edit > > > > > > it directly). > > > > > > > > > > > > For new suggestions, it would help a lot if you could also > mention > > > > > whether > > > > > > you would be available to help out with that feature or idea - > that > > > > > helps a > > > > > > lot with prioritizing and estimate the time line. > > > > > > > > > > > > For general suggestions to the "road mapping" process, please > > respond > > > > to > > > > > > this mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings and happy drafting! > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
