From: Sven Neumann sven@xxxxxxxx > Well, we have that for 2.6. We didn't put publish it. But we discussed > these points and agreed on a roadmap for 2.6. The question is, do we > gain anything if we published such a roadmap officially? I am afraid > that the only result would be that people will expect us to stick to the > release date no matter how far the essential features are developed. And > at the same time they will expect us to implement all the essential > features. I'm not sure it needs to be "published officially", but it's at least essential for Peter to have a complete picture. I think it would also be good if people who follow this list could have a general picture of what is expected for the current cycle, even if no promises are made. > I think it would be a lot more useful if we would just collect a list of > tasks that we consider important, without sticking them into a > particular release time-frame. That will make it easier for new > developers to participate. And that's what's most important. That leaves the UI team with no way of influencing development, and no way to know what they should be working on. If the idea is to have a specification before something is implemented, then the process needs to have more structure. I agree with you that there is no sense in creating rigid roadmaps extending far into the future. I think, though, that the planning process should be a little more public (at least public enough for the UI team and potential new developers to be able to look at the current state), and a little more forward-looking. Everybody should realize that not all plans that are made will be executed, but if we want coordination between the UI team and developers, there must be an ability to create definite plans. -- Bill
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
