Refactor all this

SM: I'm thinking about steering the current feature set towards "1.0 stable" and rolling the next wave of enhancements into "1.1.x" or "2.0.x". Comments ?

GG: This is a reply to Simon's FrontPage request for comments about stabilising the current feature set into a version 1.0. I couldn't think where else to comment. The suggestion is very welcome to me because:

With this organisation I would feel more confident in picking some areas to work on (if, of course, that would be welcome :-) --[GG]?

SM: Hi Geoff - no doubt! Please do not hold back! :) Thanks for the feedback. I hope today's updates to ZWikiTodo are leading in that direction. --SM Yes, it's looking that way now. --[GG]?

ZWikiTodo

ZwikiProblems

ZwikiOneDesignNotes

DeanGoodmanson, 2003/01/02 23:12 GMT (via web):
Could you earmark the Issues in the IssueTracker that are "Critical for 1.0 release"

SimonMichael, 2003/01/10 18:28 GMT (via web):
At this moment, I could not.. I can say that full i18n (though not full l10n) has been a stated goal for 1.0 for a while, and that needs a chunk of work. I think we'd agree that obvious CMF & Plone problems, and obvious performance/failure issues would be 1.0-critical; in theory these should be the things on KnownIssues. Beyond that I'm not sure.

subtopics:


comments:

1.0 discussion --SimonMichael, Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:23:54 -0700 reply
All going well, the november release will mark the five year anniversary of the first Zwiki release. Though i18n has not yet happened to the degree I intended - it needs someone to take it by the scruff of the neck - five years is long enough.

I've updated SimonsPlan2004 with some tentative plans for (gasp) 1.0. This includes the things I can think of right now that seem important for 1.0. I think Nov 1 is too soon for 1.0, but it just may be the right time to call it 1.0 alpha. I think we need a feature freeze for at least one solid month after that, preferably two, before 1.0 (may be hard).

I was mistaken - only 4 years, thankfully

1.0 discussion --Simon Michael, Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:54:06 -0700 reply
Or, heck - go wild and let 0.23 be 1.0a1, aim for 1.0b1 on nov 1, and do as many betas as we need.

SisterSites? -- Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:52:53 -0800 reply
This is listed on the ZwikiOneDesignNotes page.

Is this really an important feature for 1.0?

1.0 discussion -- Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:10:37 -0800 reply

Where do we start enumerating important features for 1.0? New issue tracker categories, I believe. Are there broader categories?:

Why do I ask?

There are some huge new features since this page was created (MoinMoin, Preview, SubTopics?, EPoz?, Plone, il8n...) which seems like it's close to 1.0, but also that there may be unfinished features (plug-ins?,??), and there are other huge architectural issues and potentials coming our way: Zope 3, Bob McElrath?'s work, etc. Time to make Zwiki 1.0 Zope 2.x stable and start a new "branch" with major changes for Zope 3/ZopeWiki:ZopeFive and other changes easier(funner?) to do when limitations removed in regards to backward compatibility, etc.

1.0 discussion --Bob McElrath?, Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:50:10 -0800 reply
anonymous [zwiki-wiki@zwiki.org]? wrote:

There are some huge new features since this page was created (MoinMoin, Preview, SubTopics?, EPoz?, Plone, il8n...) which seems like it's close to 1.0, but also that there may be unfinished features (plug-ins?,??), and there are other huge architectural issues and potentials coming our way: Zope 3, Bob McElrath?'s work, etc. Time to make Zwiki 1.0 Zope 2.x stable and start a new "branch" with major changes for Zope 3/ZopeWiki:ZopeFive and other changes easier(funner?) to do when limitations removed in regards to backward compatibility, etc.

I would really like to address this question...

In the last week or so most of my zwiki-time has been spent trying to figure out the relationship among zope 3, reST, StructuredText, docutils, etc. and where to go from here.

I am totally, and completely, clueless.

I have gotten mired in a project which is far bigger than I had intended, I am spending way more time on it than I intended. I don't see a "stable point" in the future. I don't see any kind of project definition, goals, API, or requirements. There do not seem to be self-contained units/classes that can be defined and validated and called "done". The code is an ever-moving target. Worse, it's not only code. There is also dtml and page templates that interface with that code in complicated ways. None of these things is separable in any way, and complicated breakage occurs when something small is modified.

What are we doing again? Where are we going?

Also, it seems I'm floundering in the dark and no one is paying attention to me or cares. I don't know who the zwiki 3 guy is (I emailed him, didn't get a response) -- his code was written some time ago anyway. So I don't know how to relate what I'm doing to zwiki 3 or any future zwiki direction. I've tried initiating discussions on most of these topics on #zwiki, #zope, and #wiki, but so far have failed to get a conversation going. (once or twice it was my fault -- my overall frustration has caused me to be less than cordial at times, and I apologize)

So, I don't know who posted this (hey if you post from the web hit the options button and put in your name! :), but lets get some discussion going. I'm going to start ZWikiTwoDiscussion and dump some ideas there, and ZwikiOneRelease to indicate things I think should be in 1.0. Whether this gets used for ZWiki 1.0 or 2.0 or 3.0 or something else entirely I don't care, but we need to figure out where we're going.

1.0 discussion --DeanG, Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:15:16 -0800 reply
twas me.

Sorry to hear your frustrations regarding feedback from the Zope and wiki related community. Would a post at ZopeZen? be helpful to get feedback from what folks would like to see from a NG Zwiki? (I expect the comments on the current Zwiki will come on their own, as does the usual "wiki's just aren't for me becuase ...willy nilly, " type of chatter that tags along every wiki discussion.) This might even be an interesting way to highlight the IssueTracker and ask to get to 1000 issues with feature requests!

The ZwikiOneRelease page sounds nice, but more than what I personally was expecting. Because those changes are larger, and easier implemented in a new direction, is why I was hoping to find the minimal and moderate (where must be) work needed to slap a 1.0 on the current code base and move on with a "stable" and "experimental"/NG path.

1.0 discussion --Bob McElrath?, Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:43:17 -0800 reply
DeanG [zwiki-wiki@zwiki.org]? wrote:

The ZwikiOneRelease page sounds nice, but more than what I personally was expecting. Because those changes are larger, and easier implemented in a new direction, is why I was hoping to find the minimal and moderate (where must be) work needed to slap a 1.0 on the current code base and move on with a "stable" and "experimental"/NG path.

Yes these ideas need to be culled. Clearly other people have ideas for what should be in "1.0" and some things I want will be disagreed upon by others. Anyway, it is a starting point, feel free to edit.

Let's define the 1.0 release target, then concentrate on meeting it. This also is a good way to separate ideas that really should be in a different development branch.