Tiddlywiki roadmap

[Mohammad]

In Tiddlywiki.com there is tiddler on Roadmap

https://tiddlywiki.com/prerelease/#RoadMap

The last time it was edited is 2016.

Are there any short term midterm and log term priorities, goals?

Where Tiddlywiki is going?

--Mohammad

[Diego Mesa]

Mohammad,

I think this is one of the most important questions to answer and prespecify for our community!!

[@TiddlyTweeter]

My impression is now immediate demand, not really RoadMap, driven? But not sure.

On the other hand, I do think Jeremy Ruston does most that is vital to hold the project together. 

He knows it. 

I notice a lot he often encourages PR folk to make plugins, not make demands upon "core". 

From my point of view he has balanced well calls for change v. backwards compatibility. 

I am not really addressing your question :-). But I think that for TW the role of our great BDFL matters quite a lot.

And is significant.

Best wishes

Josiah

[TonyM]

Mohammad,

I think roadmaps can be a valuable approach to development however as indicated in that tiddler there is a reference to the GitHub issues which is more of a dynamic list. I agree setting some priorities would be helpful however to do so would depend either on a select few viewpoints or a need for feedback and voting (not effectively available) thus there is value for it to stay an organic and evolutionary process. If you have a strong opinion on a particular item and can obtain support on a particular issue I am confident you can gain support through the forums and github. 

The innovation rate of Tiddlywiki is actually quite fast and the pragmatic use is enhanced by efforts such as your own. Recent items not even in the old roadmap include;

• Basic arithmetic and string tests
• Local storage still to evolve
• Multi-access Bob
• Various search and replace tools including your own contributions and the new rename
• Various authentication changes for server versions (still to evolve)
• Innerwiki (spawn) still to evolve
  

Perhaps raising your/our own roadmaps and sharing these with the community could help the development of informal roadmaps?

Regards

Tony

[PMario]

Hi

I think the roadmap today is driven by the needs of Jeremys business projects and the pull-requests by insistent contributors.

As you can see in the PR-list BTC has a lot of open PRs that all contain keyboard related improvements. Some of them have been rewritten 3 times already.

I myself am most interested atm in improving the TOCs, the navigation and saving and retrieving stories in a "compatible" way.

There is also an important one that deals with paragraph handling and TW html generation in general. ... all of them are really low level!

The last example won't be even seen by users, but will make a big difference for the whole project. Especially simplify personalisation and theming.

--------------

As TT pointed out, very often it is better to start with plugins, than call for core implementation. ... We basically have to maintain core functions "for ever". So they should be "bullet proof" and backwards compatible, because they will be very hard to remove.

Experimenting with my interests mentioned above, I did find out, that a lot more tests are needed. IMO implementing "low level function" in the TW navigation mechanism is like "spine surgery".  We have to be sure, what's going on. ... On the way I did also find some problems #4349 and some fixes #4353.

So if we want to improve "the core" we must have the "big picture" in mind. New features need to be as useful as possible for everyone.

just some thoughts

mario

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Everyone

The “Road Map” tiddler was added at some point because somebody had asked for it. Of course, it’s troublesome to remember to update it, so it’s fallen by the wayside.

I think the roadmap today is driven by the needs of Jeremys business projects and the pull-requests by insistent contributors.

That’s broadly correct. I think there’s probably at least four categories:

* Pull Requests from others

* Fixes/features in response to requests here on the mailing list

* Bug fixes

* Changes arising from Federatial’s commercial work for clients (much of which is in plugins of course)

Best wishes

Jeremy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ac282a8d-2144-4e8d-ab8a-ca6ebc530cf6%40googlegroups.com.

[Mohammad]

Thank you all for your reply and thoughts.

--Mohammad

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.

[Diego Mesa]

With the upmost respect for Jeremy, has anyone considered forking the project and maintaining a more public facing roadmap and feature list? With a focus on: organizing and involving others in the direction and decision making I think TW can really expand!

That fork would be "downstream" from the original, taking all of its features, and the original TW can "pull" anything Jeremy deems worthy. The downstream maintainer should be a trusted and longtime member of the community, of course.

There is much precedence for this kind of relationship in the open source community. There are already some examples in TW with NoteSelf and Maarfapad. I want a more centralized, community focused edition of TW, similar to the early relationship with Debian Linux and Ubuntu Linux, CentOS and Redhat, etc.

I'd like to see a public, current, and community driven roadmap and feature list, and a responsive set of core developers that have direct access to accept pull requests, etc. As Ive stated before, I want to see TW infrastructure be able to support a "Google Summer of Code" developer/team, or even a "Senior Project" team of software developer students at a university.

Something I'd like to see on the roadmap: plugin update notifications. As the core is always kept small and lean, plugins are a central part of the TW ecosystem, but currently we have to go to to google groups, search, find one as an attachment or a link to tiddlyspot (sidtenote: pray tiddlyspot never goes down as much excellent work is there!), hope it works, drag it over. Some day you have to remember to go back and check the source to see if theres been an update, etc.

Objections I foresee to "downstream proposal":

• You're free to do this yourself
• Yes that is true - if I could, I would. It can also be dismissive to point this out to someone making suggestions to the community.
  
• We're happy with TW as it is
• Ok - great. Then this post/call-to-action is not meant for you
• We dont want TW to break backwards compatibility
• This could and should be a core concern for whatever "downstream" projects exist as well, using version numbering to signal backwards compatible changes
  

Best,

Diego

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Diego Mesa wrote:

With the upmost respect for Jeremy, has anyone considered forking the project and maintaining a more public facing roadmap and feature list? With a focus on: organizing and involving others in the direction and decision making I think TW can really expand!

Try it and see what occurs.

I think you will find it won't work. NOT from lack of interest. But from lack of numbers.

We have a problem. 

We need at least 500 more people to support such diversity. I THINK (uncertain).

Our user-base is small.

I may be wrong. I hope I am. 

But try it and see what happens.

Best wishes

TT

[Diego Mesa]

Thats precisely what I think this can address - a small userbase... its a chicken and egg thing.

[Birthe C]

Diego,

A lot of opensource projects have closed. That is natural but it seems to me more and more often. Groups divide and create exciting stuff, too few hands - everybody needing to earn a living and have a life leads to projects stopping....and often enough the primary project have been drained for too long at that time to survive. That is a risk? or?

Birthe