Yesterday the Production Leadership Team released their vision on the Joomla! Development Strategy and asked for comments. You can read the article and download the Draft document here: http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1296-rfc-joomla-development-strategy.html
I added my comments to the available Google form, but here I can add some graphics.
What are your overall thoughts on the draft document.?
Great, I think now with the upcoming release and the retirement of Andrew Eddie, the time has come to make a new start. By not replacing him with another person at that position but to change the development process into a community process.
What, if any, specific changes to the draft would you suggest?
Lets start with a graphical presentation of the proposed Support Scenario (click to enlarge).
There are a few problems with this picture. First of all there is no mention of a 2.0 version!
If I look at this picture I have a feeling that 1.9 will be a big upgrade, as is the upcoming 1.5 to 1.6 upgrade. This means site owners which use 1.8 only have 2 months to upgrade to the newer version or must downgrade to 1.6 if there are not ready yet.
My last concern is for large organizations using the LTS versions. They have 3 months after the release of the next LTS before the end of life of the current one. This could be a small timeframe for those large organizations.
Version strategyIn various parts of the document a minor release is defined as:
- a high degree of continuity
- it is expected that most minor releases will not require changes to most extensions
- templates should not require changes just because a new version of Joomla is released
All these points suggest to me that the upcoming 1.6 release should be branded as the new major release 2.0. 
The next minor releases (2.1 and 2.2) will then only add functionality to this version, with full backward compatibility to 2.0. E.g. for 2.1 comments should be added and for 2.2 a general cck (to allow extending articles, userprofiles and the contact form). Those should be done in the proposed 6 month cycle.
At the same time a new major version should be started (today) with an upgraded/new architecture (including the Nooku Framework?) which should be targeted 6 months after 2.2.
New major releases should at the same time be LTS versions.
After the release of a new Major/LTS version the previous LTS should be supported long enough to allow large organizations to be able upgrade. This proposed overlap of 3 months in the example support scenario should probably be extended to 6 months.
I think these changes make the proposed Development Strategy even better. I am curious about the outcome of the upcoming production leadership team summit in San Jose and how this will bring the project further.
You are free to comment on this article, but make sure you to also write your suggestions onto the Google form http://goo.gl/BBrK for the PLT to read.
| < Vorige | Volgende > |
|---|
