Talk:Open development/Maemo roadmap - Revision history

qgil at 07:33, 2 November 2009

qgil — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:33:40 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 2 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Roadmap examples ==
		+
		+	Some links. Please add yours. Still haven't distilled whether they are good practices or not.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	* http://www.moblin.org/community/ivi/community_roadmap.php
		+	* http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Roadmap
		+	* http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap
		+	* http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/KDE4/4.0_Release_Roadmap
		+	* http://www.eclipse.org/org/councils/roadmap_v3_0/index.php
		+	* http://phonon.kde.org/cms/1007
		+	* Perhaps also worth looking at http://people.freedesktop.org/~jg/roadmap.html
		+	* http://development.openoffice.org/releases/
		+	* I'm sure you're well-away of this one, but: http://opensource.nokia.com/ (It's interesting that Maemo is not in the Projects list.) --[[User:timsamoff\|timsamoff]] 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
		+	: Yeah, I know about that and in fact is in my ToDo list. Will attack that once the new Maemo is well defined after the 100 Days. However, afaik there are no roadmaps there. Or where? --[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 19:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
		+	:: Sorry. Saw the one for [http://sofia-sip.org/repos/sofia-sip/TODO Sofia-SIP] and thought each product would have a roadmap. Nope. --[[User:timsamoff\|timsamoff]] 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Dave's feedback==
		+	* I wrote a paper on this for Wengo, a former employer - I could translate it & post it publicly somewhere if there were interest --[[User:dneary\|Dave Neary]] 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
		+	:What about starting publishing the original in French. For me is enough now.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
		+	* My favourite free software roadmap is [http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap Inkscape's] - they have this concept of laying out big plans which will be the guiding principles of a release early, and as they get closer to the release, those guiding principles get broken down and enumerated, people take on features, and they end up with very fine-grained lists of things accomplished in past releases.
		+	:Inkscape is indeed a very good example. I like the way they connect roadmaps (future) with release notes (past). However, Inkscape is just one application and Maemo is a whole platform. Single products/components in this platform could work on roadmaps having references like Inkscape. However, how to apply the good lessons to a Maemo platform roadmap?--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
		+	* Other than that, I have looked - the canonical reference [http://producingoss.org Producing Open Source Software] doesn't say anything about guiding the technical direction of a project.
		+
		+	== Nore comments ==
	Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)		Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
	Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)		Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

qgil: Talk:Maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Open development/Maemo roadmap: Subpage of Open development

qgil — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:05:13 GMT

Talk:Maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Open development/Maemo roadmap: Subpage of Open development

← Older revision

Revision as of 06:05, 2 November 2009

qgil: Talk:Task:Maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Maemo roadmap: Simpler URL

qgil — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:03:47 GMT

Talk:Task:Maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Maemo roadmap: Simpler URL

← Older revision

Revision as of 06:03, 2 November 2009

texrat at 05:07, 29 August 2009

texrat — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:07:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 29 August 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)		:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)		:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
		+	::::I see this has not been touched in a while so I will. ; ) Users will always want product leaks and such. But we can take that off the table; that's well understood. Things start getting grey as we move toward libraries and such as xfade mentions. So why can't a vague, high-level map be produced? We know this would easily be the case in 100% FOSS projects. So IMO instead of forcing the dialog always toward the "Nokia can't do this" end of the pool, why don't we start with what CAN be released?. --[[User:Texrat\|Texrat]] 12:063, 29 Auguest 2009 (UTC)

generalantilles: Talk:Task:maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Task:Maemo roadmap: Uppercasing Maemo

generalantilles — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:55:57 GMT

Talk:Task:maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Task:Maemo roadmap: Uppercasing Maemo

← Older revision

Revision as of 11:55, 30 June 2008

generalantilles: Cleaned up formatting

generalantilles — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:16:17 GMT

Cleaned up formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 28 June 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	* Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)	+	Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-	* Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)	+	Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-	:''Ok to the idea but as for today we cannot commit publicly to a specific date, nor guarantee that this will be done within 100 days. It won't be 2010 either, most probably at some point during the second half of this year. What should we do? Add it with a disclaimer? Leave it out? --[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)	+	:Ok to the idea but as for today we cannot commit publicly to a specific date, nor guarantee that this will be done within 100 days. It won't be 2010 either, most probably at some point during the second half of this year. What should we do? Add it with a disclaimer? Leave it out? --[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-	:: ''There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)''	+	:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-	:::''Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)''	+	:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

qgil: Moved from main page

qgil — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:45:35 GMT

Moved from main page

New page

* Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
* Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:''Ok to the idea but as for today we cannot commit publicly to a specific date, nor guarantee that this will be done within 100 days. It won't be 2010 either, most probably at some point during the second half of this year. What should we do? Add it with a disclaimer? Leave it out? --[[User:qgil|qgil]] 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:: ''There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)''
:::''Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 29 August 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)		:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo\|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)		:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade\|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
		+	::::I see this has not been touched in a while so I will. ; ) Users will always want product leaks and such. But we can take that off the table; that's well understood. Things start getting grey as we move toward libraries and such as xfade mentions. So why can't a vague, high-level map be produced? We know this would easily be the case in 100% FOSS projects. So IMO instead of forcing the dialog always toward the "Nokia can't do this" end of the pool, why don't we start with what CAN be released?. --[[User:Texrat\|Texrat]] 12:063, 29 Auguest 2009 (UTC)