[Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process

Koehne Kai Kai.Koehne at digia.com
Tue Aug 13 10:44:43 CEST 2013

> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Alpert
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:42 PM
> To: Bubke Marco
> Cc: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Bubke Marco <Marco.Bubke at digia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > There are now many new feature proposals popping up on the mailing list.
> > Sometime there is a link to a wiki page, JIRA etc.. You can easily get lost.
> > The result are more hard designable (we working on the qml designer)
> > features and Qml has more than enough already. So I propose something
> > like the PEPs of Python: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ It
> > is working very well for them.
> >
> > Lets call it Qt Enhancement Proposal(QEP).
> >
> > In short you publish a  QEP on the wiki and add it to the QEP list so
> > everybody can find it. There will be a discussion about it on the
> > mailing list. The arguments will be compressed in the QEP and then
> > there will be a decision. The QEP will stay so if somebody come up
> > again he can be pointed to the QEP.
> >
> > This worked very well for Python and so far I know most other
> > languages(and many projects) have simular process.
> >
> > Yes it sound like more work but I think in the end it is less.
> >
> How much more work it is, and the utility, depends on what exactly goes in
> the wiki. With this vague level of specification, I also cannot see the
> difference between this an a JIRA suggestion.

I don't mind the platform (JIRA sounds right to me), but I also think we could do a better job at getting items on the roadmap, and bigger things like language changes, documented.

Right now I'm trying to find JIRA items for any the proposed language QML extensions, and it's a pain. We don't really use the 'Fix Version' field consistently (see recent discussion), we mix all kind of issue types (bug report, task, suggestion ...), some of the ideas aren't yet in JIRA at all, AFAIK (e.g. ideas for a generic assets://).

One idea to handle this would be to add yet another issue type, e.g. 'Feature', that 

 - would be defined as a major change or addition that e.g. would typically show up on the road map, be in the list of changes ...
 - can only be created by approvers (to avoid having features that are actually bug reports, or features that are valid in theory, but in practice don't have a chance to be implemented any time soon)

In exchange we might consider killing some issue types that aren't used much (Epic, Research, Change Request ... ). Though I'm sure someone is using them ;) We could of course also re-use the 'suggestion' type, but that IMO would be a misnomer.


More information about the Development mailing list