We are asked from time to time about Groovy's roadmap (e.g. ). Having a roadmap is conceptually a very attractive idea. It helps us plan our releases and reminds us of our big ticket items we are wanting to do going forward. It also helps users of the language do their planning.
Having said that, we also know that there are potential problems. We used to have a wiki page on codehaus with a rough roadmap. As others have pointed out, it was sometimes unrealistic and/or out of date. A very extensive list of tasks is also a maintenance burden and sometimes we spend lots of time debating about what should be done and when even though in reality we might only have resourcing for a small subset of the potential ideas we collectively have. I should also mention that we have quite a bit of information already in Jira with tickets having 3.x, 4.x etc. indicative fix versions and don't want to duplicate that information. In any case, that information is possibly incomplete and isn't in a very digestible form.
So, what I am proposing to do is a mini roadmap. It will just be a web page with a few forward looking releases on it and hopefully just a few big ticket items for each release listed. Perhaps something like this:
+ various new AST transforms and utility classes (I'll expand slightly later)
+ Backport of new Parrot parser
+ New Parrot parser
+ Revamped XML module (suggested spike to prepare for JDK9 modules)
+ @NamedArguments (or similar) for type inferencing with Map arguments
It will be important on the page to indicate that this isn't a complete list, and have references off to other sources of information.
Let me know your thoughts (and/or suggestions for the big ticket items - though by necessity I want to keep the listed items short, so I won't be able to include everything).
I didn't come back to you on this email, but I like the idea of sharing such a mini-roadmap.
Of course, a roadmap is just that, a roadmap, not a firm commitment as carved in marble tables, but it's always good to have an overview of what's coming. So +1 on this!
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Paul King <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea of having that roadmap.
Do you think it would be a good idea to add dates ? e. g. 2nd quarter of 2017 or 2nd half of 2017. Nothing too tight but at least something that could give you a hint about when is expected to be available.
El 17 may. 2017 4:33 p. m., "Guillaume Laforge" <[hidden email]> escribió:
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|