5.1 Roadmap

From Gramps
Jump to: navigation, search
Gramps-notes.png
This is a guide only.

Because of the nature of a volunteer-driven project, it isn't possible to say with any certainty what will happen in the next release.

This page collects possibilities for the 5.1 version of Gramps

Schedule

31 Dec 2018 Agree final roadmap (this document).
15 Apr 2019 All major features should be merged into master.
15 May 2019 Feature freeze.
01 Jun 2019 String freeze.
15 Jun 2019 Final release.

Policy changes

Project governance

At present, we use a benevolent dictator model. The BD defines the project's strategic direction and has the final say in decisions. Do we wish to change this?

Do we want to introduce a voting process for significant changes? If so, who gets a vote?

Perhaps we should introduce a committee to make decisions?

The following web pages are worth reading:

Decision:

We will continue with the benevolent dictator model. The Architect will define the project's strategic direction and have the final say in decisions. However, if a contributor regards a decision as unfair or contrary to the projects goals, an appeal can be made to the Administrator.

The current Architect and Administrator are listed on the wiki Team page:

Procedures for branch merging

Currently the core gramps50 branch is occasionally merged into master. This process seems to have been a success, but we need to review it.

Do we want to extend it to the addons repositories?

Who should merge the branches?

When should they be merged?

Decision:

We will continue with the current process and also extend it to the addons-source repository.

Branches should be merged before they diverge significantly, but no exact timing was agreed.

Paul Culley will co-ordinate this task. Other developers are more than welcome to help out.

Pull requests for significant changes

Always using pull requests for most changes has been proposed previously and rejected [1], but we can discuss it again.

What changes should require a pull request?

Who should be allowed to merge a PR?

Should the submitter be allowed to merge the PR?

How long should a PR remain open for reviews, comments and testing before merging?

Decision:

Almost all changes should now be made through pull requests. The following are exceptions:

  • Making a release
  • Branch merging
  • Updates to translations
  • Updates in release directories
  • Emergency fixes

Bug fixes in maintenance branches should be left open for at least 7 days for comments. After that, if no objections have been raised, any developer is allowed to merge the PR including the author. The developer merging the PR should test it first. Code reviews are encouraged. Any contributor can easier express approval or concern by reacting to the initial comment with either a thumbs-up or thumbs-down emoji.

New features in the master branch should be left open for at least 14 days for comments.

Dependency upgrades

Database model changes

Are there features that require database change? This should happen in the beginning of the development cycle. List your requirements here.

  • Enhancements to the place structure to support GEDCOM-L PLAC tag
    • Allow multiple place Types with date for each
    • Deal with 200+ place types
    • Allow multiple postal codes and other attribute like data, with date for each
    • Allow places to have attributes (for above)

Suggested changes to implement the requirements above:

  • PlaceName
    • Add a list of PlaceAbbrev objects. A PlaceAbbrev object should consist of a some text and associated type (PlaceAbbrevType).
    • Add a citation list.
  • PlaceRef
    • Add a hierarchy type.
    • Add a citation list.
  • Place
    • Replace the place type field with a list of LocationType objects. A LocationType object should consist of a date, PlaceType, and citation list.
    • Add an attribute list.
    • Add an event reference list.

Major goals

This section lists main goals developers want to achieve. Major goals should be started in a GEPS branch. Major goals require a developer and a reviewer.

  • GEPS043 Improving GEDCOM support for Places
  • GEPS044 Rewrite UIManager code to avoid using deprecated methods
  • GEPS045 Place Model Enhancements
  • Store objects as JSON rather than pickled blobs See feature request #9392. Previously discussed on the list. [3]
  • Remove raw methods from database API

Minor goals

This section lists minor goals developers want to achieve. Minor goals can be done by one developer alone.

Suggestions:


Rejected Changes

  • Add citations and attributes to notes Sources on notes previously rejected. [5]
  • Change links in notes to hard-references Decided against in original design discussion. [6]