From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Omar Radwan Subject: Re: ROADMAP in git tree needs to be updated. Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:16:17 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87a92617rf.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137d022321dd8050b6239db Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55631) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5ibr-0001aX-Ep for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:16:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5ibq-0007bU-G3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:16:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87a92617rf.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --001a1137d022321dd8050b6239db Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >I=E2=80=99m tempted to remove the file >altogether, because that=E2=80=99s= not really the >preferred way to communicate about >this, and is bound to become >outdated. I think removing it is a bad idea because a roadmap gives you an idea of what is planning to be implemented and the goal. Estimations make people hopeful. And putting in the source tree helps a lot I think we need to rewrite the roadmap from scratch. On Dec 29, 2014 1:11 PM, "Ludovic Court=C3=A8s" wrote: > Omar Radwan skribis: > > > I was browsing the guix git tree the other day, and I was reading the > > ROADMAP file, and I found it extremely outdated. It talks about Guix 1.= 0 > > being released in time for GNU's 30th anniversary. I think it needs a > > rewrite > > Yeah. (Though it also starts with two paragraphs explaining that this > is historical, and giving a link to a more recent road map.) > > I=E2=80=99m tempted to remove the file altogether, because that=E2=80=99s= not really the > preferred way to communicate about this, and is bound to become > outdated. > > Thoughts? > > Ludo=E2=80=99. > --001a1137d022321dd8050b6239db Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>I=E2=80=99m tempted to remove the file >altogether, b= ecause that=E2=80=99s not really the
>preferred way to communicate about >this, and is bound to become
>outdated.

I think removing it is a bad idea because a roadmap gives yo= u an idea of what is planning to be implemented and the goal. Estimations m= ake people hopeful. And putting in the source tree helps a lot

I think we need to rewrite the roadmap from scratch.

On Dec 29, 2014 1:11 PM, "Ludovic Court=C3= =A8s" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">
Omar Radwan <toxemicsquire4@gmail.com> sk= ribis:

> I was browsing the guix git tree the other day, and I was reading the<= br> > ROADMAP file, and I found it extremely outdated. It talks about Guix 1= .0
> being released in time for GNU's 30th anniversary. I think it need= s a
> rewrite

Yeah.=C2=A0 (Though it also starts with two paragraphs explaining that this=
is historical, and giving a link to a more recent road map.)

I=E2=80=99m tempted to remove the file altogether, because that=E2=80=99s n= ot really the
preferred way to communicate about this, and is bound to become
outdated.

Thoughts?

Ludo=E2=80=99.
--001a1137d022321dd8050b6239db--