Roadmap

I worked more with 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, but I looked a little bit in 1.1 too

I propose this:

first post the old versions:
for joomla 1.5 1.0.1 stable and 1.1 last beta
for joomla 2.5 1.0.2 (it would be more logic to rename it to 2.0.1, because of joomla 2) but you'll have to say, it’s the same!

then leading together version 1.1 and 1.0.2 (means integrate the hacks) would be 2.5.0.1 and continue
(as much as I know, it's nearly done - exception multicategories and updatecontrol)

for joomla 3, you can then go to JEM 3.0.1 and continue

Well guys,

Let me add some info here. Over the last two months I have spoken extensively with Edmond (efduggan) about how to set up this project as a fork of Eventlist. He initially committed to be the development leader for this project.
This was good news, as he's an experienced Eventlist user, a long-time moderator on this forum, and also has good knowledge of best-practices in software development.

Much to my regret he informed me yesterday that his current workload does not allow a consistent time commitment to the JEM project. Too bad for this community, but off course we will have to respect that someone's working career prevails above a hobby project.

OK, so this means we will have to hope for an other project leader, hopefully an experienced developer with a good understanding of the Eventlist component.

I'm planning a one-time email to all registered forum users to notify them that the forum has moved and also to let them know we can use some help on the development. Hopefully some extra people will want to get involved, and maybe we find our desired project leader. Otherwise, I'm convinced that over time we will be able to attract new people, certainly once JEM is listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory (JED).

In the meantime we won't have to sit back and wait. I've discussed with Bluefox that there is quite a lot of stuff to prepare that we can initiate ourselves. The project has to be set up at Github, we can make a start with the code repository and the name changes and decide upon a roadmap to work towards. Bluefox is willing to take those initial steps. And maybe he's able to even take it further.. He keeps saying he's not a developer, but I'm not sure anymore

In my conversations with Edmond we spoke about which version to use as a starting point to work from.
He was also in favour of using 1.1 as a starting point, implementing the code changes of 1.0.2 to make it Joomla 2.5-installable.
This leads to the most significant improvements in functionality.
Please bear in mind that before we can list JEM on the Joomla Extensions directory, we have to comply with a strict set of rules that forking an extension involve.
You can find them here under H - Extensions and Forks

Then about version numbers:
Edmond proposed the following: Because we don't want to give too high expectations with the initial version, we could use a JEM 0.9 as the initial one listed on the JED. As an initial development version (NOT for public release) we could use version number 0.8
I have been thinking about these version numbers, and I came to the conclusion they could only lead to more misunderstandings because at some point we would encounter a version 1.0.1 1.0.2 and 1.1.
Keeping this in mind my proposal is to go for 1.8 as the initial development release, 1.9 as the first release to be posted on the JED.
As for the rest of the versioning I think an x.y.z schedule would be most suitable:

x - major release
y - minor release
z - build number

Finally:
Edmond and I also spoke about the structure of this site. We wanted to keep discussions between developers away from the forum, and only use the forum for Community Support. Similar to the working method of other community-developed extensions (eg Kunena).
Therefore I already set up Projectfork on this website where developers can meet and discuss in a separate forum. It also allows to set timelines, milestones and all those other project-management stuff we don't want to bother the general public with. So over time, all people in the development team, once it's formed, will get access to that.


Sorry guys, long post, but there was a lot to say

ernst67 wrote: Much to my regret he informed me yesterday that his current workload does not allow a consistent time commitment to the JEM project. Too bad for this community, but off course we will have to respect that someone's working career prevails above a hobby project.

Understandable, but in at least in the starting phase he would habe been a big support for the project.

I'm planning a one-time email to all registered forum users

Good idea.

The project has to be set up at Github, we can make a start with the code repository and the name changes and decide upon a roadmap to work towards.

Yes, good idea!

Bluefox is willing to take those initial steps. And maybe he's able to even take it further.. He keeps saying he's not a developer, but I'm not sure anymore

Haha, me neither

In my conversations with Edmond we spoke about which version to use as a starting point to work from.

This is one of the points where his knowledge of the project is really helping. Maybe he can share his thoughts when questions like these come up in the future.

Please bear in mind that before we can list JEM on the Joomla Extensions directory, we have to comply with a strict set of rules that forking an extension involve.

Concerning section H, for JEM, it effectively reduces to having added functionality and an active development. I don't see big hurdles here.

Then about version numbers:
Edmond proposed the following: Because we don't want to give too high expectations with the initial version, we could use a JEM 0.9 as the initial one listed on the JED.

I think, the confusion of the EL versions arrised because there was different functionality between versions and also they were only for different Joomla version. It was a mess in itself.

With a new name, a new project, I don't see any problems to start with whatever version number we like.

For internal development builds, I question that we need versions, as they will be pulled from the svn.

For the early testing versions, we can also add "beta" to show it could have some bugs.

As for the rest of the versioning I think an x.y.z schedule would be most suitable

Yes.

We wanted to keep discussions between developers away from the forum, and only use the forum for Community Support.

Yes, good idea.

Sorry guys, long post, but there was a lot to say

Thanks, I always appreciate some infos

Hi Diesl,

Thanks for the reply. One little remark:

With a new name, a new project, I don't see any problems to start with whatever version number we like.

In this document
it states that "version numbering must clearly indicate a new project."

So I just wanted to prevent ANY possible confusion about versions.

Well, ok. We should get rolling I guess.....

Well, maybe we should not start with v1.02 or v1.1

I just meant that in my opinion we could also start with the v0.9 proposal of Edmont.

Apart from that, I think this is a quite confusing rule. Version numbers are what they are - version numbers. May be they just want to prevent that one extension covers every version step of the original one, when both are still actively developed.

I continue to propose:
first number: is joomla version (1, 2, 3)
second number: as long as is a Zero, it's in development
third number: versioning

when it must be a new project: are we allowed to offer the old versions?

I propose the EL 1.0.2 could be in mind the JEM 2.0.1
The JEM 2.0.2 would be the EL 1.0.2 with the added hacks (almost possibilities from 1.1 (longtime discussed and resolved after all from Bluefox).

The JEM 2.0.3 can perhaps integrate the multiple categories from EL 1.1 (I think it's the last thing not yet integrated)

If this is safe and stable, we can upgrade it to JEM 2.1.0

The JEM 3.0.1 would be the first version for joomla 3.0+

We wanted to keep discussions between developers away from the forum, and only use the forum for Community Support.

yes, when we start where?