| Re: [eigen] Status of unsupported modules |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Status of unsupported modules
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:40:28 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f4R26Qu9lcaF0UUtXfxoCUC5illrYc/0QxARsOOV8IY=; b=jfX56WGXm5FojgSi25oTsjYJsRdtq0LMOm4BVnEcyrUM9GOt+7F+IfS3LdgY4oWsyW 7rzWlDz3OozU2Jr/NCJ0qR7JztiJWdLd6Jwiew/1CxGDfIW07wfGpYeQt3hb5q5B4AZF kOEIk2YVjcX9SE+cXXGX+hWrQLto/yN63PucM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CqyqB2SpdlO71OXRJK9HmS6d5xwvcuBD6MZRVNIHtkkzMinizj1iV/ZyCoC04+KlAo QECH0C0dOUGD21JebPHX57ZjtuazyUkKrLRh+3g2qRyP/nWyR6ishxjPyRubQ14Xy5WU d+UbnqmFpukVsOpeZ3r/9pckoN9I6CwFFqYjU=
2009/11/24 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2009/11/23 Thomas Capricelli <orzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> In data martedì 10 novembre 2009 23:24:55, Thomas Capricelli ha scritto:
>>> We now have 12 'unsupported' modules, and I think it's time to keep track
>>> of those in a slightly more formal way.
>>>
>>> I've added this page to the wiki (I think it belongs there rather than the
>>> doxygen documentation as it's a moving target and not reference
>>> information).
>>>
>>> http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Status_of_unsupported_modules
>>>
>>> I'll try to complete it as much as i can, but please add the information
>>> you can, especially concerning the 'contact' column.
>>
>>
>> It has now been two weeks and some modules (5 out of 12) still have not been
>> updated. What should we do about this ? I'm afraid that one day or another, we
>> have to decide at which point we should consider that a module is
>> unmaintained. What do you think ?
>
> I think that all we can do, is to decide long in advance and announce
> clearly a "module freeze" date after which we reserve the possibility
> of saying that it's too late to move new modules to supported for 3.0.
> Not that it's a big deal: such modules could still go into 3.x.
>
> Such a "module freeze" could coincide with the feature freeze,
> actually. So let's announce now a feature freeze date. We can always
> delay that date in the future if we're really late, but it is still
> useful to give people an idea of when stuff needs to be ready in order
> to make it into 3.0.
>
> In order to go with the idea that 3.0-beta1 must focus on the
> essentials without necessarily be feature-complete, we should put the
> feature freeze a bit later; but not too much later. So why not
> schedule a beta2 coinciding with the feature freeze.
>
> We already have this date:
> May 1 : tag beta1
>
> Do you think it's reasonable to say 6 weeks later:
> June 12: tag beta2, feature freeze (implying module freeze)
>
> (i'm picking saturdays).
>
Nobody complained so I went ahead:
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Release_schedule_for_3.0
Benoit