Hi again David, On 28/08/2020 10:11, David Leangen wrote:
Perhaps we should just wait in case anybody else would also like to add something? So I would describe James as: * Currently in a state of transition (this is what James is now) * What we aspire it to be for version xxx (I am proposing v4.0) Just a crazy thought, but technically, I could even create the v4.0 of the documentation, and we could even use it almost like a specification to guide the development. Of course, the real work gets done based on JIRA issues, but the issues that get created in the first place could be matched against the v4.0 docs. As we make progress, the two different versions will resemble each other more and more (i.e. what James **is** gets closer to what we **aspire** it to be, at least for v4.0). I don’t think we need to (or ought to) set a timeline, though. There are not enough resources allocated to do that. What do you think?
I think for such a move there is probably a need of consensus through the PMC members via a vote.
Yes we need a good change of approach in our documentation and branding, and it looks like it's taking the right direction, but the code itself is not really having a big breaking change with this...
So is it enough to move towards a 4.0 or should we keep going with 3.x version? I'm not sure myself to be honest.
Cheers, Rene. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
