I'm not nearly as involved as all you are in this project, but I linger around on the list to cast opinions about when something catches my eye, as this has.
I can say that as a (somewhat lay) user of Tracker, the UI is about as bad as Martyn says - it works, but barely. My impression was that the 0.7 release was supposed to be something big; something for the community to be excited about. I can understand the desire to push it out the door, but if the idea is to release a major version number, and for it to be a big deal, doing so lacking a UI to leverage it seems like folly to me. I agree that we shouldn't try to push the community too much (as Phillip says, I think), and that going with the flow is a good thing, but I really hope we don't release such a poor tracker UI when the architecture has been made so wonderously powerful underneath. My 2 cents... Mike Jamie McCracken wrote on 07/10/2009 04:11 AM: > I started looking at fixing the UIs yesterday so hopefully should have > them fixed this weekend or early nest week-I might need to bug some of > you for improved sparql suport > > Please dont release til we have them! > > There also a number of things missing > > Metadata rank weights-should be in ontology but they are not > > I wrote the fts rank funtion but it needs to be use the correct metadata > weight and be exposed by spqarql so I can order results by rank > > the rank function simply sums (weight * number of occurences) as fts > stores the positions and hence we known number of occurrences in the > index > > for search tool I also need FTS snippets function to be exposed by > sparql (its in fts and I modded it to be efficient) > > The above is needed by search tool so I cant finish that off until that > is done. No doubt there will be other issues as I fix the Uis that > require mods to sparql > > I also think we need the Events (onto, storage and possibly dbus) to be > added to that list. I can add it to the file indexer to store file > histories during indexing once its in our onto. > > I would like to eliminate the Zeitgeist daemon as what they want to do > is most inefficient - get relevant data from tracker to a python > middleware process and forward it on to clients. IOW their daemon acts > like a wrapper around tracker and is therefore redundant not to mention > bad design!!! They should use a c lib if they want to wrap tracker not a > python daemon! > > Also we should get tracker into Gnome within 6 months so clients can go > straight to tracker for metadata, tags, events etc > > jamie > > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:00 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This year there has been a lot of talk around tracker which is really >> good to see and also some applications like zeitgeist are interested in >> using it too. >> >> Through the week, I have been thinking about what is left to do before >> we can start releasing the 0.7 unstable versions. >> >> I started a wiki page with the details and have started working on some >> of these already. If anyone has anything to add, please do so. >> >> http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/Roadmap >> >> After speaking to the rest of the team (we estimate) we could release >> within a month or so. >> >> This largely depends on the UI too. Right now we are considering >> releasing the unstable versions without any UIs and to work on those >> during the 0.7 releases. Jamie has elected to get started on those in >> the next few weeks. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Martyn >> _______________________________________________ >> tracker-list mailing list >> tracker-list@gnome.org >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list >> > > _______________________________________________ > tracker-list mailing list > tracker-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list > _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
