Roller 2.0 release and need for roadmap (was Re: BRANCHING all clear)

[Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org>]

On Oct 22, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> It's a bit unfortunate because we've gotten a bit behind with the 1.3 
> release and now we are in a situation where we pratically have 2 
> versions ready for release (1.3 & 2.0).

I don't think that's a big issue. Roller 1.3 is for folks who just want 
a couple of bug fixes and not a big new release.


> I still think there are some issues with 2.0 that need resolving over 
> the next couple weeks, but I think we should probably try and cut off 
> the 2.0 feature development where things stand now and focus on 
> finishing up the release by finishing up any unresolved issues and 
> fixing bugs.  I would also be comfortable with actually finalizing the 
> 2.0 release in the next week or two and tagging it, but not releasing 
> it publicly for another week or two after that.

Yes. I think that once we fix the PostgreSQL problem we should tag and 
release.


> I suppose it would be good to have a simple discussion about what our 
> roadmap is.  Stuff that I have on my list are ...
>
> Roller 2.x
> - custom authentication w/SSO support (acegi)
> - presentation caching upgrades (likely with memcached support)
> - standardize weblog templates (Weblog, _day, _css, _decorator)
> - more spam prevention measures (comments & trackbacks)
> - more flexible url structure
> - auditing
> - instrumentation
> - theme improvements (rewrite?)
>
> Roller 3.x
> - tagging support
> - more complete dashboard

That's a good summary and I think it would be great if we could agree 
on a Roller roadmap for the upcoming months. A roadmap should make it 
easier for us to coordinate our development.

I'm going to work on a proposal for spam prevention measure this week. 
I've setup release 2.1 in JIRA, so we can track improvements there (and 
point to proposals on the wiki).

- Dave

Re: Roller 2.0 release and need for roadmap (was Re: BRANCHING all clear)

[Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>]

Dave Johnson wrote:

>
> On Oct 22, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
>
>> It's a bit unfortunate because we've gotten a bit behind with the 1.3 
>> release and now we are in a situation where we pratically have 2 
>> versions ready for release (1.3 & 2.0).
>
>
> I don't think that's a big issue. Roller 1.3 is for folks who just 
> want a couple of bug fixes and not a big new release.
>
>
>> I still think there are some issues with 2.0 that need resolving over 
>> the next couple weeks, but I think we should probably try and cut off 
>> the 2.0 feature development where things stand now and focus on 
>> finishing up the release by finishing up any unresolved issues and 
>> fixing bugs.  I would also be comfortable with actually finalizing 
>> the 2.0 release in the next week or two and tagging it, but not 
>> releasing it publicly for another week or two after that.
>
>
> Yes. I think that once we fix the PostgreSQL problem we should tag and 
> release.

I think its close, but it needs a bit more chill time and QA.  There's a 
lot of new stuff that only Dave and Allen have really had an opportunity 
to check out.

>
>
>> I suppose it would be good to have a simple discussion about what our 
>> roadmap is.  Stuff that I have on my list are ...
>>
>> Roller 2.x
>> - custom authentication w/SSO support (acegi)
>> - presentation caching upgrades (likely with memcached support)
>> - standardize weblog templates (Weblog, _day, _css, _decorator)
>> - more spam prevention measures (comments & trackbacks)
>> - more flexible url structure
>> - auditing
>> - instrumentation
>> - theme improvements (rewrite?)
>>
>> Roller 3.x
>> - tagging support
>> - more complete dashboard
>
>
> That's a good summary and I think it would be great if we could agree 
> on a Roller roadmap for the upcoming months. A roadmap should make it 
> easier for us to coordinate our development.
>
> I'm going to work on a proposal for spam prevention measure this week. 
> I've setup release 2.1 in JIRA, so we can track improvements there 
> (and point to proposals on the wiki).
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
>