On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:37:31 +0900
Carsten Haitzler <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:54:02 +0000 Andrew Williams <[email protected]> 
> said:
> 
> > Hi Vincent,
> > 
> > I would really love this too - in fact I have been pushing for it. I
> > suggest regularly that it would be helpful to have a roadmap. On my most
> > recent request I was told bluntly “too much effort, you are the only person
> > that wants it”.  
> 
> https://phab.enlightenment.org/T5301. you keep telling me "that's not a
> roadmap".
> 
> comparison table:
> 
> |                                            | T5301 | GTK+  |
> | Has title                                  |   X   |   X   |
> | Has short description                      |   X   |   X   |
> | Has longer (multi-parapgraph) descriptions | Some  | Some  |
> | Has assignment of who is doing it          |   X   |   X   |
> | Has status/priority                        |   X   |   X   |
> | Are a changing "document"                  |   X   |   X   |
> | Has dependencies                           |   X   |       |
> | Has discussion thread                      |   X   |       |
> 
> OH look there. it has everything your supposed roadmap has and even more! What
> were you telling me that this is not a roadmap? Please indicate clearly how it
> is not as I have clearly shown above that it has everything you claim a 
> roadmap
> has (you would want that document linked to) and even then some more.
> 
> > If we can get more support for such a document I would be far happier to
> > push forward again and see it is pulles together.  
> 
> The document exists. Stop saying it doesn't. You just want someone to write it
> up in a table on a wiki page (which is what the GTK+ one is) instead of as
> tickets. If you want that - then you do it. And maintain it.

Unless I've misread the previous mail, Andy has just said that if people are in 
favor of such a page that he is willing to do the work. I'm confused by the 
apparently hostile demeanor of your reply considering that someone has just 
offered to do the work which was requested?

That task in phab (which cannot be found from the phab wiki, the main site 
wiki, or a google search) does not constitute a project roadmap of the sort 
that this thread is discussing. A roadmap should be visible and easy to locate, 
it should be readable by those who are not project insiders, and it should be a 
usable document for people working on related projects to judge whether they 
can/should contribute to the major tasks or if their projects will use any of 
the current/upcoming work items. I'm not interested in nitpicking or being 
pedantic; no, I didn't reference a dictionary or wikipedia or technical 
journals to arrive at my definition, this is just my expectation upon seeing 
the roadmap for any project. The cited task fulfills none of these criteria in 
my view.

Furthermore, although I appreciate the time that you put into creating this 
ascii comparison table to demonstrate the possibility that our ticket is better 
than their actual roadmap, this table is itself irrelevant because the 
phabricator task has no correlation to release planning and thus is not a 
roadmap such as the one linked in the original mail.

I'm in full support of having a roadmap for EFL to try coordinating releases 
around. This would make our supposed time-based release schedule more sensible 
and less "I think we're maybe still waiting for some feature but I don't know 
what it is or who's working on it?".

On that topic, it's been nearly 6 months since the last major release and it 
seems that we're doing more work towards pointless arguments, trivial 
bikeshedding, and landing of untested/unusable code than we are towards any 
kind of release. I am not blaming Stefan here; anyone who would be our release 
manager for this long without quitting is likely to be an actual saint. At some 
point, however, we should probably ask ourselves whether we're in the business 
of being a functional project and producing releases or being ridiculed in 
another dailywtf post.

> 
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 at 16:57, Vincent Torri <[email protected]> wrote:
> >   
> > > hello
> > >
> > > i've recently seen this gtk roadmap :
> > > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GTK%2B/Roadmap/GTK4
> > >
> > > is there the same for EFL ?
> > >
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > >  
> > -- 
> > http://andywilliams.me
> > http://ajwillia.ms
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > _______________________________________________
> > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel  
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to