I think it depends on how much work and fundamental change the "code rewrite" would entail. If there is a lot of changes, then we might need some sort of a code freeze.
D. On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Anne Kathrine Petteroe <[email protected]>wrote: > My wishlist for a release in June would be: > > #52 Add types of authentication besides OpenID > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-52 > > #16 Unifying server calls (JSON-related) > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-16 > # 58 CometActor TagCloud.scala - Conversion to JSON > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-58 > > # 60 Change the Scala code to remove HTML from Track functionality > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-60 > # 61 Change the Scala code to remove HTML for Login functionality > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-61 > # 62 Change the Scala code to remove HTML for Action functionality > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-62 > # 63 Change the Scala code to remove HTML for the specific User-related > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-63 > > # 59 Better documentation of our existing Scala code > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-59 > > And of course the UI. > But in order for the UI development to move ahead we need the server-side > developers to remove the HTML in the Scala code first. > > My question however is: > Does it make sense if we need to do a rewrite of the existing code? > Shouldn't we try to do the rewrite first? > > /Anne > > > On 9. mai. 2009, at 10.19, Richard Hirsch wrote: > > Let's select a few Jira items that we would like to have and run with them. >> I think those Jira items that are very specific and relate to detailed >> functionality would probably be the best idea. >> >> Any suggestions for which Jira items to select? >> >> D. >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> One of the main things I've seen work successfully in many project to get >>> the >>> community moving as well as attract new developers/users is to get an >>> actual >>> release out. There are a lot of people that won't go through the >>> effort >>> of >>> checking out from svn, building, etc.... They want to see an actual >>> release >>> to play with. >>> >>> Thus, my suggestion, would be to set a date for a release (even a >>> "milestone" >>> release, like a "0.1" version) and see what can be done before then. >>> For >>> example, maybe target June 30th, see what can be put in before then, and >>> kind >>> of run with it. Even if it ends up being "not much different" than what >>> is >>> in >>> SVN right now, it's at least a step forward. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Are there other ideas that folks have to help get things moving again? >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Kulp >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog >>> >>> >
