Re: OCIO - Path Forward


dbr/Ben <dbr....@...>
 

This all sounds good to me!

I would be happy to help out auditing/tagging the issues in GitHub. 

The current labels seem fairly reasonable to me - "feature" for new things, "bug" for bugs, internal for non-user-impacting things, a label to flag API breaking changes, and "deferred" for future things. I'd probably add tags for performance improvements, docs, and build related issues. Then along side these, maybe tags for tag "easy" quick-to-fix issues, low/high priority tags)

Regarding CI, There is a pull request to fix up the TravisCI config (#415). It would also be worth investigating Appveyor to test on Windows also

Sent from my phone

On 12 Jan 2017, at 11:12, Sean Cooper <se...@...> wrote:

Hello all, and happy new year!

I'd like to start a formal discussion around the steps we will take to give OCIO a breath of life. Hopefully we can work to make 2017 a year of progress. So in that spirit I'd like to layout a general game plan for comment and discussion.

General Notes:
  • Reading through our last discussion I found it troubling that due to the stalled public development, conversations and progress seemed to have moved behind closed doors. To facilitate openness I advise all contributors to relegate conversation to either the GitHub issues or this forum. I have created an OpenColorIO Slack channel if there needs to be quick group conversation among contributors, but the majority of conversation should be relegated to this forum.
  • I have been granted ownership to the GitHub repo, and can accomplish administrative tasks as necessary. I do not intend to accept Pull Requests in isolation, both due to the need for public discourse and my unfamiliarity with the codebase.
  • Development should continue in a "master-only" fashion, based on the previous branch/merge patterns and at the suggestion of Larry Gritz

Game Plan:

  • Organization
    • Project Owners
      • This is no slight to the current owners of OCIO, but would it be worth it to revisit the current owners and identify their level of involvement moving forward (based on interest and free time available)? It could be beneficial to add vocal / active developers to the helm of the project. Discussion welcomed.
    • Issues
      • Need to create a better issue labeling scheme, and need to maintain it's use. Suggestions welcome.
      • Are issues irrelevant / duplicates?
      • Do PRs solve specific issues?
      • Asses difficulty in solving
    • Pull Requests
      • Are they still relevant?
      • Rank in order of usefulness
      • Determine order of integration
  • Repository
    • Continuous Integration
      • In order to begin pulling a larger volume of Pull Requests, we need to update the CI system in use.
      • Alongside this is a reevaluation of the OCIO unit tests
    • Make private forks public
      • Address private forks with additional features (Dennis Adams, Mark Boorer, etc.)
      • Get them posted publicly, work into pull request
  • Road to 2.0
    • What are the dream requests?
    • How do we want to interact with OCIO in 5 years?
    • What movements on the horizon do we need to begin working towards?
    • What features would improve adoption in modern software?
Order of Attack:
  • Issue Labels
  • Easy PR with greatest image quality impact
  • Website + Documentation
    • Up to date? Documentation still relevant?
    • Website on version 1.0.8
  • Continuous Integration
  • PR review
  • Issue solving
  • Live, Long and Prosper

Please join me in conversation about the future of OCIO! All of the above is open to suggestion and critique.

Sean

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Join ocio-dev@lists.aswf.io to automatically receive all group messages.