On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Iain Duncan<[email protected]> wrote: > > Where are these announced? Where is the news? Where are they on the > roadmap? Where are the posts on the almost silent dev mailing list? Why > is it so ridiculously hard to find out what's up with the future of > Pylons?
> IMHO the public face of Pylons needs to do a lot more to give the > impression that Pylons is active and continuing and not going to become > abandon-ware. There are people out there interested in helping with > this, but when we make some noise about it and it gets almost no > response from anyone, it's very discouraging to us re the future > viability of basing work on Pylons. Are others feeling this too? That Pylons is not committing to enough long-term support and/or is not revealing enough about future plans? If so, I feel like "What is enough?" Like many projects, the latest information is on the mailing list. Reading them for a month should give a good indication where Pylons is headed. I try to put things I hear about on the Roadmap. The Routes work hasn't gotten on it because it's so new and, I thought, too preliminary. (In fact, I was going to work on the "with prefix" feature after the need was raised, but Ben beat me to it.) If you think the announced information is inadequate, the best thing probably is to write up what you think is missing or how you'd like it to be (for the Roadmap or home page or wherever it belongs), and run it by Ben to see if he disagrees with it or doesn't want to commit to that much. That's what I do with the Roadmap. I write what I see happening, and just draw Ben's attention to any paragraphs that might be controversial. The biggest part of getting these announcements out is writing them. "But I can't write about what I don't know about." Or: "The developers keep adding things that hadn't been announced." I do wish Ben would write something on the roadmap about what he's working on but hasn't told anybody. In that sense I echo Iain's concern. But it does all fit into the broad parameters of "The changes will be in a few peripherary details." And even if some feature changes are under-annonunced, isn't that the opposite of a project being abandoned? One interesting thing about the existence of Pypes is it allows Pylons to get more relaxed about certain issues. For instance, there has long been discussion about whether the benefits of the StackedObjectProxies are worth their complication. But taking them out might cause disruption or break some apps. So here's a chance to say "They're staying in Pylons but they won't be in Pypes (except in the Pylons compatibility layer)". That would mean one less thing to think about for 1.0, and give people a choice whether to use a framework that has them or doesn't have them. (And if Pylons-Pypes does have SOPs, I'll be interested in making a variation or similar framework that doesn't have them.) -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
