On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:43 AM, kilon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I really like the idea of roadmap. In an open source project people are free >> to work in anything they like , even bring new nice features of their design >> as long as they don't disturb the existing code. >> >> But the same people, including me, or even mere users , wonder where the >> software is heading. Even an exploration ship , that sets to explore new >> areas has goals. I would like to see in the pharo website a roadmap not just >> for 3 but even for pharo 4. I know that Stephane has given a presentation >> about pharo 3 roadmap , maybe you could link those slides. > > the problem with this is that we do not have a clear roadmap for Pharo4 (yet). > How it works now is: at the beginning of a year iteration we make a list of > what we want, taking into account what emerged latest year (both new > possibilities opened and new/old problems that emerged). > > That gives us what we can more or less call a "next release road map". And is > "more or less" because situation can change. For example we wanted a complete > revamp of Pharo3 L&F, and we wanted also a complete migration of Morph to be > rendered with Athens, and reality showed that is not achievable this year... > so it will wait until next one (and that does not means at all that we > stopped work on that area, just that the completion of the task will take > more time than expected). > So... what's the roadmap for Pharo4? No Idea :) > What we already know is that we made a huge move forward in infrastructure > for Pharo3 (starting by Opal, but not restrained to that), and now we want to > focus in the tools (but without doing *just* that, because there are lots of > tasks to do in kernel, modularization, cleanups, etc.) > > in general, for pharo there is a vision document that shows the long (really > long) term goals. Now I do not remember where is it, but should be somewhere > in the pharo site (probably not visible enough). > The problem is that I think we already did a lot of that vision. We need a new one.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
