Thanks everyone for the favorable votes, I've updated the roadmap to
reflect the consensus approach of an accelerated 1.0:

  http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap

I broke out the 2geom packaging task to its own thing, and like
discussed at the hackfest I'll take the action of working on getting a
release out for it.  I wasn't sure what version number to pick for it,
and just picked 1.0 at random; I figure since we're targeting Inkscape
1.0, having 2geom at roughly the same version number will be sensible.

I'm reticent to pencil in even vague dates on that wiki page, but
we've been considering doing what we're now calling 1.0alpha some time
mid to late 2018, with 1.0-final being in 2019.  If we can make good
progress at crossing off items on the roadmap, the dates could be
earlier.

Alex, I had some trouble remembering exactly what gtk3 work we decided
to focus on for 1.0alpha and what to postpone to 1.1.  Would you mind
editing this wiki page and detailing a bit better what should be planned
for when?

Tav, can you look at the other tasks outlined for 1.0alpha and let me
know if it looks reasonable, or too much?  All the stuff there seems
like it would be best to get in for 1.0, but I'm uncertain if we have
the right resources to tackle it so need some advice.  Also, are there
any priorities for the 1.0alpha release that I've missed, or that got
moved to 1.1 but should be in 1.0?

We talked about working on test cases, and I took the action to split up
migration of old test cases amongst active developers.  I'll do that in
the next few weeks.  We also need the distcheck target set up (I'll do
it at some point if no one beats me).  There have also been scattered
reports of various bad performance problems, so we should look into any
easy fixes that don't risk too much disruption of internals.

Thanks,
Bryce

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:49:43PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap,
> looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing
> 1.0.
>
> With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or
> functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may
> not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been
> our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to
> as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the
> 0.92.x series for them.
>
> Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our
> software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately
> provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
>
> So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development
> release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or
> "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an
> alpha release for 1.0.  From there we could conduct multiple further
> pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe.
> What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
>
>
> Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among
> attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release
> expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation
> efforts.  Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for
> 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in
> branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
>
> As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing
> of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and
> divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of
> them.
>
> For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require
> or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or
> reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
>
> I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like
> to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward.  So,
> how does this plan sound to you?
>
> Bryce
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> Inkscape-devel@...1784...sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@...1656...784...sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel