| 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: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:47:39 -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=ed2TzmCjmjK2ga9QpDGiKpfeb/UrRgS7u+659jMvpvc=; b=Skt1UFljjL90n1baIQKMEKQwvvrJLfykdRxGLbr4sM+RxrraepWw9b9NPl1dxkFXTK SdebcLgKbt3MzEricm0hf+kBYUynpVL624TuoPXQIBGc447axIqDcBkqNGEhXSYY3dGq 8MrsB3UZQPvS9w9X/pcUmGrXX6Y9UNPAYk/cA=
- 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=S3PnGVCjmsuRS6ZSS89gTAv4H7S+DtmIVapdo4q/Oste4JKCvwqD//WoLcrAXvFvM9 fu9xreyJwJDSj6OWL/xVHMtLyL9StayZVtyZNpmntTfwXcvUNKsn0W0UtuaVITW/dEJK ZyNjkmoYcoY8vYypLHN4cQJ6gfJqNY/tmq6sM=
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).
Benoit
>
> Thomas
> --
> Thomas Capricelli <orzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.freehackers.org/thomas
>
>
>