On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Paul Rigor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you think mailing list traffic is proportional to TG2 usage? We haven't > contacted the ML once we've deployed our web applications. Our group uses TG > heavily and perhaps being quite means everything is working just fine =) It's not proportional to how much is in use, but it's likely related to how much new development is happening. Not necessarily correlated, but definitely related. I want to get new development going again as well. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > I want to leverage the expertise of you developers wrt/ > best current practices. I don't want to become an expert > in a dozen different opensource packages in order to use TG; > The 80/20 rule applies -- if I stick to commonly used features > I should not need to be an expert in that package. > TG actually shines in this area, but it is not obvious. You really have > to dig to find all the value. > That's a big part of the idea I have for the documentation: * Improve documentation. Overall goal is to make docs into a book in a few major parts: Tutorial (take a project from idea to maintenance), alternatives and extensions (to help get projects moving quickly), and finally a reference section at the end. The end result should be something that addresses that problem for TG2 very well, I think. All these branches causes confusion for users and makes people > think TG is not really stable. IMO, optimize for new projects > in TG 2.2. Optimizing for TG1 porting is not nearly as important. > I do not think there is a market for 1.5 or 2.0 (2.1 was clearly > making 2.0 obsolete before most people had a chance to look into it.) > And that is another part of what I'm looking to address: * Close out all bugs that can be closed without introducing backward incompatibility *or* deprecation warnings. * New features will be limited to things that don't introduce backward incompatibility *or* deprecation warnings A major major goal of mine is to provide an upgrade path from 2.1 that involves no changes to code currently using 2.1. I want to bring TG2 to a strong stable point, and provide a strong base for whatever we do in future. Once we have that, extensions can become much more useful, allowing people to write code that they can expect to work. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:37 AM, werner <[email protected]> wrote: > My feeling with the above is that the few people currently involved are > still spreading themselves pretty thin, by trying to maintain many branches. > It's actually not so much as you might think. The main thin spread for me right now is due to me trying to a) have a job, b) have a life, c) work on tg, and d) work on the administration of the site. We're getting the website moved and administration effort reduced. Unfortunately, my day job kinda screwed up my plans for March (I wanted that done about 10 days ago). > Are there many people out there waiting for a 2.0.4 release? If not I > would skip this and concentrate all the time on 2.1.1 and small improvements > to 2.1.1 and moving forward to 2.2. > We do see people working with 2.0 still. I'm not sure if it's a major chunk, or just a chunk, but it's still out there. We need to support them, too. Fortunately, the fixes for 2.0.4 are pretty minimal and mostly done. It's just a matter of switching to the new site before releasing it (and making sure we didn't miss anything). > The most important point is getting the doc into sync with the "main" > branch, if this is 2.1.1 then the doc and at least the one or two tutorials > should work out of the box with the main branch. > For 2.1.1, the docs are going to be almost entirely untouched, I think. Later releases are going to see the docs get updated (and in a big way). On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Christoph Zwerschke <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, it's important that we finish that move. It's already done for TG1, > and I'll help with the TG2 tickets this week. I apologize for not getting TG2 done by now. It's just been a rough couple weeks. Last night, I was just thrilled to get caught up on all my emails. I'll get to ticket migration work tonight, though. > Agree. We should also have CI running before releasing 2.2.0. One feature > that we may consider for TG 2.2 is integration with TW2 since TG 2.1 > supports only TW1. (Maybe TW2 is possible already, but not tested and > documented). > I forgot to mention CI, dammit. Well, that's on the list for 2.2.0, too. TW2 support is already there, we just have to document it well. I've seen config options to turn it on, so I know it's there. -- Michael J. Pedersen My IM IDs: Jabber/[email protected], ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171 Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/[email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.
