Talk:Open development/Maemo roadmap
m (Talk:Task:maemo roadmap moved to Talk:Task:Maemo roadmap: Uppercasing Maemo) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | :: There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? [[User:bundyo|bundyo]] 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | :::Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::I see this has not been touched in a while so I will. ; ) Users will always want product leaks and such. But we can take that off the table; that's well understood. Things start getting grey as we move toward libraries and such as xfade mentions. So why can't a vague, high-level map be produced? We know this would easily be the case in 100% FOSS projects. So IMO instead of forcing the dialog always toward the "Nokia can't do this" end of the pool, why don't we start with what CAN be released?. --[[User:Texrat|Texrat]] 12:063, 29 Auguest 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:07, 29 August 2009
Get a clear public roadmap of what the plans are for the maemo platform for Fremantle. (Note: this doesn't mean a roadmap for ITOS20XX or disclosing new hardware features etc.) --xfade 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Give developers a clear list of what library versions are targetted for Fremantle. E.g. glib, gtk+, hildon. --xfade 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok to the idea but as for today we cannot commit publicly to a specific date, nor guarantee that this will be done within 100 days. It won't be 2010 either, most probably at some point during the second half of this year. What should we do? Add it with a disclaimer? Leave it out? --qgil 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? bundyo 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --xfade 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see this has not been touched in a while so I will. ; ) Users will always want product leaks and such. But we can take that off the table; that's well understood. Things start getting grey as we move toward libraries and such as xfade mentions. So why can't a vague, high-level map be produced? We know this would easily be the case in 100% FOSS projects. So IMO instead of forcing the dialog always toward the "Nokia can't do this" end of the pool, why don't we start with what CAN be released?. --Texrat 12:063, 29 Auguest 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, Nokia won't have to say "we release Diablo on June 5th 2008". But they can say: we plan to use glib 2.12 for Diablo? So at least developers can work towards their own target and know what features to use of the already known libs. This is about common libraries we are already using in the platform, not new ones for new features. --xfade 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's another thing - some libraries you can't release, without giving up the new hardware specs, what about them? Not released? bundyo 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)