[Typo3-dev] TYPO3 version 4.0.0?

[Kasper Skårhøj]

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 09:32, Daniel Hinderink [TYPO3] wrote:
> Good morning and welcome ot this fine thread :-)

"ot" or "to"? :-)

> So the idea of "official extensions" further down in this mail is very
> natural to me. Also see the "Quality Development"-thread from last november
> 14.th, which fits nicely with such a plan. I'd love to make progress on
> this!

You have my full support! 


> 
> I have nothing to say, but that i 100% support you on this. I find it
> logical, a safe and realistic strategy and i believe to a certain extent,
> that is already what we are doing.
> That also means we have 2 pressing things on the agenda:
> A. getting the extension review process up and running

It hurts my heart as well. And naturally I think "...then I will do
it!". Does that sound like a good idea? No, it doesn't. So, the question
is; what is really holding the concept of extension review back?

> B. making a more sophisticated EM and TER reflecting the hierarchy, which is
> determined by the quality of reviewed extensions.

I would love to.
Last night before I feel asleep I thought "yeah, daniel is right. Lets
just look at it from above and publish 3.6.0 at some point when we all
feel it is stable, then go and celebrate in Amsterdam 2 weeks from now".
Now, the ironic thing is that this might sound like if you kind of
suggest as "vital-for-3.6.0" feature which is some modifications to
EM/TER all the while you are downplaying the urgency of other things.
Was that your intension? I totally agree that TER/EM/KS is top-priority
on my list but there ARE also other things which to me seems just as
important to fix for a 3.6.0 release

(BTW: I have already implemented the setting of a version-span for
extensions so you can specify that "this extensions works with
3.6.0RC2+" and people will not be able to download versions through EM
which are not compatible with their combination of TYPO3/PHP versions.
This has been a major problem generating lots of frustration).


> > 
> > 4.0.0 - 4.1.0 - 4.2.0 (since the jump to v. 4 IS justified in my
> > opinion).
> 
> I think it is close, but let's ask Karsten how far he got?

Yes, we don't have to settle this now.

I also wanted to say that in this case your opinion (representing the
marketing compartment of TYPO3) regarding version numbers has a heigh
weight. I don't have any important agenda to push through, just wanted
to get some opinions. If you really insist on staying with "3.6.0" it's
equally fine with me.


>  
> > So what could TYPO3 possibly include of features for:
> > 
> > TYPO3 ver. 4.0.0:
> DBAL with handlers for major RDBMS's.
> DAM first level?
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > 
> > 
> > TYPO3 ver. 4.1.0:
> Versioning
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> 
> TYPO3 ver. 4.2.0
> A revamped EM and TER reflecting a division between reviewed and
> non-reviewed (production and project) extensions, plus official extensions.
> 
> TYPO3 ver. 4.3.0
> A revamped rights and users system, including LDAP integration (which we
> actually have in the drawer)
> 
> TYPO3 ver. 4.4.0
> An API for external applications (like Application Servers and Workflow
> Engines) to call functions in TYPO3 via WebServices. Preferrably conforming
> to WfMC Tool specifications.
> > 
> > 
> > TYPO3 ver. 4.5.0:
> Workflow, the project description way.
> Semantic metadata thoughout the system
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > 
> > 
> > TYPO3 ver. 5.0:
> Architecture stuff
> I would like ask René, Robert and Dan to get their minds revved up on this.
> 
> Up to 4.5.0 that is what i think are the pressing issues where TYPO3 is
> lacking functionality, t


Sounds fine.

So a conclusion could be:
- We stay with 3.6.0 until we can reasonable promote the "dbal"
extension to work with Oracle / Postgresql. Then we jump right up to
4.0.0
- From then we increment according to progress based on a pattern like
the one you defined above (not considering its details now).
- Lets organize some conscious selection of extensions which are to be
"official extensions" 
- Lets understand the "project descriptions" as means of getting new
"Official extensions" done in a structured way according to market
needs.


> > And that might feed a comment from you on my idea of "Official
> > extensions"?
> 
> I think we already have it, it just doesn't have that label.
> 
> Brave new world here we come,

You're the king, champ!
(seeing Daniel standing with his arms stretched to the side in the front
of a large trans-atlantic steamer...)


have a nice day!



- kasper