> Thanks, Thomas, for the clarification. This wasn't apparent to me, > although I > have been following the project for a long time (actually, since version > 0.5).
Ok. And it wasn't like that from the start. I can't say exactly off the top of my head, but the issue tracker-centered workflow came later than 0.7, maybe with 1.0. > I can see the point of your reasoning, but it doesn't fully resemble what > I > have experienced so far. I always had the impression that you as the core > team had a very definite idea of what it was you were trying to achieve > and > of the features you wanted to implement. Yes, we have :-). All I wanted to say is if you got something that is close to *your* heart, make sure you create a bug for it; don't wait for us to do it. > Yes, there has been the > occasional > wish from the community, but the main ideas were always yours (driven by > company needs or own reasoning about what needed to be done). There are > plenty of bugs with feature requests that have been there forever [1]. That's the other thing I said. Creating a bug is necessary, but not sufficient for an implementation. Of course we are prioritizing issues, and quite a few get queued up at the back (and believe me, not just user-created ones). But I think by now you got me: Creating a bug is your best chance of getting considered. (As a side note, I appreciate when people raise issues on the mailing list first if they are not sure about their thoughts. But if there are no hard facts raised against the issue, opening a bug for it is then your best next move). > Don't get me wrong, I think this is perfectly ok and it is what has made > qooxdoo what it is. I wasn't fully aware of whether you filed bugs for > your > own targets or not. And it would seem to me that something like contrib2.0 > is not just about doing us a favor, but actually a very important > framework > decision that might have very beneficial consequences (in terms of number > of > contributions) I entirely agree, both for importance and not just doing the users a favour. But we are not talking here about important vs. unimportant - relevant vs. out-of-scope - feasible vs. not feasible; decisions like these are all too trivial. We are talking about important vs. more important - very relevant vs. highly relevant - feasible vs. feasible but with a greater impact. This is our usual scale of decisions to make. On the other hand we have "lost" two members of the core team during the first half of this year. I don't want to dramatize, but for a small team like us this has serious implications. We have just brought out our second major release, 2.0, and I think all our efforts now need to go into stabilizing and maturing this new incarnation of the framework. We have entered so many new fields with it, and the least thing I want to see now, less than anything else, is a decline in quality. We need to attack the rough edges... > But now I know more and I am happy to file that famous bug that got it all > started. :-) Very good :-). T. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
