Allen Bierbaum wrote: > Marcus Lindblom wrote: >> This is one big e-mail. I'm not sure how to begin answering it. From the >> top of my head: >> >> * The roadmap needs to be there. At least something that we can look at >> and comment on. Direction for effort is also a good point in this. >> >> * A 1.8 end-game list needs to be made, so we know what needs to be done >> to get it released. Then work like mad on that. (There is work being >> done on 2.0 everyday, I'd prefer finishing 1.8 first.) What is left? > > I don't know. But I did create a page to start listing the things here: > http://opensg.vrsource.org/trac/wiki/Planning1_8release
Why not directly on http://opensg.vrsource.org/trac/milestone/1.8%20Release ? Or did you plan for a bigger page? I think we ought to be careful about creating pages with 2-3 lines of text on them. That won't be efficient. It's so easy to refactor a wiki that we probably should try to use the obvious places at first and then move stuff out when it's too much, rather than ending up with a sparse site where it's hard to get a good overview. Again, I like the trac roadmap's level of info. See: http://trac.edgewall.org/roadmap >> * As said, we will use 1.8 for the current project (until march next >> year), then probably switch to 2.0 if it is stable enough. We need to >> know the status of 2.0 to know when to make the switch (and thus, if we >> need/can contribute to make things happen faster). > > It is good to hear that you are planning to switch. I think we are > going to switch within the next couple of months. There are many things > that need ported over to 2.0, but the code itself seems pretty stable to me. Yeah. We use a fairly small subset of OpenSG, so I think we can switch a bit early (no clustering or similar fancy rendering. Geometry, transforms and shaders. VRML/TGA/JPG). That's about it, plus some image-manip, which ought to be easy to port if it isn't already. However, that _needs_ to be up and running. We can't afford more than a few weeks of porting time. (Since I'm the only one who groks OpenSG enough to manage to port from 1.8 to 2.0.) >> * I agree with Dirk's comment that OpenSG is really in a sort of 'middle >> ground' with many users and too few contributing developers. Again, >> fixing the roadmap for 2.0 & setting tickets for everything 1.8 would >> help greatly. > > I think a planning page for 2.0 similar to the one I just created for > 1.8 would help this out. Yup. >> * I think IRC or anything text-based is better for conferences. That >> way, we also have a log of the discussions. But that's just me. (We seem >> to do pretty well here on the mail list, we just need faster iterations.) > > Any discussion would be good. IRC, skype, whatever. Let's just start > discussing. :) We need to decide on some kind of agenda/topic though. Some of the 'future-of-opensg' issues would be good, _if_ we need more rapid decisions. I don't know how fast OpenSG is moving or can move at the moment. >> Could we make a list of various parts of OpenSG where we have ppl with >> sufficient time & knowledge to provide leadership (or at least be the >> current 'point of contact' for communication), so that we have a clear >> map over which parts are covered and not. Each person would then be >> responsible to at least keep track of current status for her/his module >> and coordinate development. >> >> It need not be a single person, and could be the "mail-list forum" for >> some issues until we get more ppl commited. At least, the list of >> modules/areas, current leadership and current status should be >> summarized. (The PEOPLE file in trunk is a base for this.) > > I like this idea, but I don't know who would go where. Are you willing > to take a first crack at making a wiki page like this to outline the > leadership? Hm. The reason I asked for it is that I don't know enough about it. I haven't been messing about with OpenSG enough to know which parts are whose creation. But I could copy the old PEOPLE file, if it's up to date. I think anyone of the core guys could type this down pretty quickly, then I could put it on the wiki and make it shiny. :) >> This overlaps the roadmap work in some sense. >> >> I think the most important thing is establish where we are on the map >> and try to point out a heading to everyone. > > I agree 100% with you on this on. Without a roadmap we have no plan or > direction and that is a bad place to be in a software project. Yeah, it is since we have a goal (get 1.8 and 2.0 out). After that, it might not be as necessary to have a 'master plan' all the time, since it's pretty open-ended on where ppl want to take it. (Based on the theory that if the foundation is solid, it can take a whole lot of additional strees without needing reinforcement :). Cheers, /Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
