5.0 and or 4.8 (was Re: [development] Drupal x.x.0 freeze date)

[Steven Peck]

The 4.5 to 4.6 roadmap while interesting was in my opinion a fairly
interesting boondoogle.  Part was people ended up working on other
things then they thought, either due to life, paying work or
better/different ideas, some disappeared and some stuff just didn't get
done.  We got people who would look at the 'roadmap' and then chastise
the dev community or rant using the roadmap as there justification.  It
was annoying.  

-sp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces at drupal.org 
> [mailto:development-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Earl Miles
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:16 PM
> To: development at drupal.org; kb at 2bits.com
> Subject: Re: 5.0 and or 4.8 (was Re: [development] Drupal 
> x.x.0 freeze date)
> 
> Khalid B wrote:
> >> It is fair, one can have ones own view of what  they like 
> or dislike 
> >> without the concerns of others yet wishing others can help to test 
> >> and comment on their pet features.  It is pretty sad if 
> this is the main
> >> stream thoughts from developers - I hope  this is not the 
> case.   But of
> >> course, we all like no rules and no obligations ;-).
> > 
> > 
> > Jenny
> > 
> > This is Open Source development. It does not happen because 
> corporate 
> > marketing mandates a feature, or  someone up high in the hierarchy 
> > orders it down the command chain.
> > 
> > It is mainly a scratch your itch thing. Someone's itch may be 
> > something relating to a web site they own and run, another person's 
> > itch is their
> > non-
> > profit clients, yet another would be commercial clients, 
> yet another 
> > would be scalability for a hosting provider, ...etc.
> > 
> > We cannot force everyone to a herd mentality or a hive 
> mind. If others 
> > want a feature in, they write it, they lobby for it, they convince 
> > others of its value.
> > I will only object if I see that this breaks something else, or is 
> > bloated, or whatever.
> > 
> > In my view, the features have to be the collective sum of 
> pet features 
> > that people who chose to propose them and put the effort to 
> make them happen.
> > 
> > So, it is not as pessimistic as you understood it to be, or 
> as you may 
> > sound to you.
> 
> I do think that the one positive to the 'roadmap' argument is 
> to put together what people are working on. Not so much a 
> "This is waht will happen" but a projection of how things 
> look now. Even with the knowledge that this isn't a promise, 
> and is malleable, it can help people out by identifying areas 
> that could use help, should someone wish to pitch in, and it 
> can identify areas that are well covered so that people don't 
> end up butting heads trying to scratch the same itch.
> 
>