From: Tim H. <tho...@te...> - 2015-10-04 21:16:11
|
Am 04.10.2015 um 22:01 schrieb Denis Bitouzé: > Le 04/10/15 à 21h53, Tim Hoffmann <tho...@te...> a écrit : > >> Am 04.10.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Denis Bitouzé: >>> Le 04/10/15 à 19h58, Tim Hoffmann <tho...@te...> a écrit : >>> >>>> so far, we didn't have a distinction between release candidates and >>>> "raw" development versions. However I agree, that it makes sense. I've >>>> extended the update notification mechanism. To be configurable (notify >>>> on stable / release candidate / development). So users can now choose >>>> which updates they want to see. >>> >>> BTW, the term used here is "update", but wouldn't "upgrade" be more >>> appropriate? >> >> Well that terminology is arbitrary to a certain extend. I would rather >> not bother too much to distinguish this for our purose. Or, if you >> will, one could say, all we are doing is updates to TXS 2.x, an >> upgrade would be 3.x :) > > Good point. Any plans, roadmap, features lists for such an upgrade? :) Not as such. Support and maintainance eats up a large amount of time. We are very much at the limit of our capacity. So don't expect any large steps. The feature coming closest to this is the recent rewrite of the parser, introduced with 2.10. While you don't see much of it on the surface, it significantly simplifies some internal stuff and makes other things just possible (e.g. commands spreading across multiple lines). There are lots of reasonable features (essentially see the open issues in the feature request tracker), and I have some of them on my personal wishlist. However, the larger ones would require some reasonably large continous block of development time, that's nothing you want to spread over many 1-2 hour sessions in the evenings. So I see the near roadmap mainly in continous improvment of many smaller bits and pieces. I think history has shown that we can still reasonably advance with that pattern, needing larger steps just from time to time. |