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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release. If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience! ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers. Hope that help! AV On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote: > I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and > your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and > hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case > then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and > 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or > postpone those to post v1.0? > > [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap > > 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>: > >> 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >> > > > > -- > Christoffer Holmstedt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >

The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).

Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after. AV On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote: > Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the > first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now > until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. > Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no > intermediate stable release. > > If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start > shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we > announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond > to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to > happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, > or they will have a very bad experience! > > ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will > be for use only by bleeding-edge testers. > > Hope that help! > > > AV > > > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < > christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote: > >> I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and >> your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and >> hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case >> then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and >> 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or >> postpone those to post v1.0? >> >> [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap >> >> 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>: >> >>> 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Christoffer Holmstedt >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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(a)lists.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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release. On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote: >> The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?). > Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to > rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about > this course of action, first. > > But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish > cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first > (plus getting caught up at work). > > Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may > feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the > public. > > Bryce > >> Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and >> anything that involves new features will be after. >> >> AV >> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote: >> >>> Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the >>> first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now >>> until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. >>> Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no >>> intermediate stable release. >>> >>> If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start >>> shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we >>> announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond >>> to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to >>> happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, >>> or they will have a very bad experience! >>> >>> ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will >>> be for use only by bleeding-edge testers. >>> >>> Hope that help! >>> >>> >>> AV >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < >>> christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and >>>> your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and >>>> hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case >>>> then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and >>>> 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or >>>> postpone those to post v1.0? >>>> >>>> [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap >>>> >>>> 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961... >: >>>> >>>>> 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christoffer Holmstedt >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Before, we’re moving on to 1.0. I think we should have at least a large amount of people voting on features they really would love to see before they can call it 1.0. I know I want to see gradient stroke, better gradient mesh nodes handling (forcing tangent lines to move along with each other, and making gradient mesh tangent to each others, and making LPEs work on them) before 1.0 happens. Good gradient mesh support is the only thing I see missing in Inkscape besides CMYK, and a good portion of vector painting is possible only because gradient mesh is a thing. I know I would rather use vectors than raster with very good gradient mesh support, and there wouldn’t be much of a reason for me to use rasters with such a thing. Just a thought here. ------------------------------ *From:* Victor Westmann <victor.westmann@...400...> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:50:26 PM *To:* Ryan Gorley *Cc:* Inkscape Devel List *Subject:* Re: [Inkscape-devel] Roadmap 1.0 Totally agree with Ryan. Having the name alpha raise awareness on the stability of the version and having 1.0 in it as well will make people super excited about it -- I know I am! +1 for all this. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 12:30 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel, < inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net&gt; wrote: > You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as > 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and > help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release. > > On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote: > >> The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?). > > Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to > > rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about > > this course of action, first. > > > > But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish > > cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first > > (plus getting caught up at work). > > > > Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may > > feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the > > public. > > > > Bryce > > > >> Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, > and > >> anything that involves new features will be after. > >> > >> AV > >> > >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> > wrote: > >> > >>> Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's > the > >>> first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from > now > >>> until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of > 1.0. > >>> Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can > be no > >>> intermediate stable release. > >>> > >>> If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start > >>> shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we > >>> announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often > respond > >>> to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want > that to > >>> happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is > ready, > >>> or they will have a very bad experience! > >>> > >>> ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which > will > >>> be for use only by bleeding-edge testers. > >>> > >>> Hope that help! > >>> > >>> > >>> AV > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < > >>> christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki > [1] and > >>>> your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on > 1.0 and > >>>> hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the > case > >>>> then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 > and > >>>> 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the > year or > >>>> postpone those to post v1.0? > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap > >>>> > >>>> 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington < > bryce@...961...>: > >>>> > >>>>> 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net > >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Christoffer Holmstedt > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> 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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Thanks Ryan, by the way did you get a chance to upload the video from Friday when we talked about the roadmap? It's probably tediously dull but maybe some people would like to see the sausage making on this, I think the points were all well made. Bryce On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:28:49PM -0600, Ryan Gorley wrote: > You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as > 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and > help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release. > > On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote: >>> The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?). >> Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to >> rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about >> this course of action, first. >> >> But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish >> cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first >> (plus getting caught up at work). >> >> Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may >> feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the >> public. >> >> Bryce >> >>> Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and >>> anything that involves new features will be after. >>> >>> AV >>> >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote: >>> >>>> Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the >>>> first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now >>>> until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. >>>> Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no >>>> intermediate stable release. >>>> >>>> If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start >>>> shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we >>>> announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond >>>> to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to >>>> happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, >>>> or they will have a very bad experience! >>>> >>>> ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will >>>> be for use only by bleeding-edge testers. >>>> >>>> Hope that help! >>>> >>>> >>>> AV >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < >>>> christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and >>>>> your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and >>>>> hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case >>>>> then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and >>>>> 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or >>>>> postpone those to post v1.0? >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap >>>>> >>>>> 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>: >>>>> >>>>>> 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(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christoffer Holmstedt >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 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(a)lists.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(a)lists.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(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >

Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.

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(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel