Just to clarify: my idea was to seriously start considering going towards a feature freeze, not necessarily to impose it *right now*.

Hans

On 04/04/2011 10:26, Stefaan Vanbillemont wrote:
Hans,

I follow your remarks to put an temporary feature freeze right now without forgetting the refactoring ideas/plans that where suggested the last few weeks. Systho: can you put your 'year' idea on a wiki page so we have a more clear view ??

The rework of the support project is more or less ready, as soon as we have a agreement on the release management I can start creating versions for the different applications/packages. So the combined roadmap should become very clear for everybody! I also created 2 'testing' queries for people that want to test bugfixes/feature implementations. SO can access them in the issue list view of Core and Applications

Applications: http://support.chamilo.org/projects/chamilo-20/issues?query_id=48
Core: http://support.chamilo.org/projects/chamilo-20/issues?query_id=47

If wanted, I can create queries to offer a combined view with open issues too :-)

Kind Regards,

Stefaan Vanbillemont



Op 4/04/11 10:16, Hans De Bisschop schreef:
ion. I we want to be able to tell people that no new features are currently being accepted, we should follow that rule ourselves too, no?

As an example I would quote the FrontController and OO-ification of requests and responses as something which does not seem like a very realistic thing to start working on in the near future. It can of course be planned and prepared, but the time isn't quite right for an actual implementation. (Too many things remain that need to be cleared out, both technically, structurally AND on a management level). Another example would be an idea I've been toying around with for a long time: further abstraction of tools ... it's interesting and definately in the future, but right now it's just too much and too big.

On the other hand something like implementing an additional storage engine (e.g. PDO-based MySQL, Doctrine DBAL, ZF DB, ...) should be considered an alternative implementation that works within the margins of the existing framework. Any holes which would subsequently be found in the general framework can be considered bugs and can obviously be fixed. (as long as they don't include major architecture changes)

There will always be exceptions of course, which can obviously be discussed if and when the need arises. I'm not trying to put a damper on everyone's enthousiasm, but considering we're already pretty ambitious (or so I've been told) ... we have to be very careful to make sure we can actually proverbially walk before we start to run. Big refactorings might be just a tad too ambitious right now.

Best regards,
--

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.chamilo.org
http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev

--

*Hans De Bisschop*
Hoofddeskundige ICTO | Lead Developer Chamilo 2.0
Software Coordinator Chamilo Association
Erasmushogeschool Brussel
Nijverheidskaai 170 | B-1070 Brussel
T 02 559 02 54 | i 254
hans.de.bissc...@ehb.be <mailto:hans.de.bissc...@ehb.be> | www.erasmushogeschool.be <http://www.erasmushogeschool.be/>

Kom eens langs: www.erasmushogeschool.be/infodagen <http://www.erasmushogeschool.be/infodagen> of lees onze elektronische nieuwsbrief: ehbrief.ehb.be <http://ehbrief.ehb.be/>
P Before printing, think about the environment

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.chamilo.org
http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to