Hey Diego, On Thursday, March 31, 2011 20:03:31 Diego Casella wrote: > after hearing sebas' interest about GSoC project aimed to release a stable > version of PlasMate, I've collected some ideas and wrote this very first > draft of the proposal [0] :) > As always, comments are highly appreciated!
> @sebas: as you suggested, I didn't included the "code refactoring" thing, > but I think a little bit of modularization wouldn't hurt; what do you think? It depends, I'm not really against refactoring parts of the code where, the goal however needs to be to get a first working version. You've mentioned that in your proposel already, but I think the focus should shift slightly. Some hints that would make it more interesting: - State the goal more clearly, for example in terms of what will be working and tested by the end of your GSoC project. I'd personally like to see the following: * working and intuitive complete workflow for creating Plasma "apps" (creating, editing, previewer and publishing) * basic debugging facilities for QML Plasmoids (for example a scripting console where your print() output ends up, an object inspector) * Fixing most important problems: plasmoid sizing in the previewer (especially when the Plasmoid fails to load, the display explodes and one can't read the error messages) * The publisher needs a way to export the Plasmoid to a remote device (for example a "publish to device buttons", which makes testing the widget on a target device way easier (can be done using Plasmoid sharing) * Improve documentation for writing Plasmoids, covering basic Plasma Widgets, UI guidelines, etc. * Working workflow for dataengine development - I'm not entirely sure in how far runnners are really important at this point, and how much work is needed for that. It's probably one of the features that can go onto the afterburner, if it benefits the above goals. - If you have plans to further maintain and develop Plasmate (which I guess is your intention anyway, given your track record so far), it would be good to note that in your proposal since it makes it more interesting for people. The purpose of GSoC is to get people involved after GSoC. - The proposal should also have more detailed milestones, I'd propose bi- weekly milestones, which take one or more (or one split up ;)) of the above points, and specify those in terms of accountable items. This eases also the mid- and end-term evaluations. - You haven't mentioned communication in your proposal, additional to the usual suspects, status reports would be very much appreciatd. You can tie those to the above milestones, > :) > > [0]: > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2011/diego_cas > ella/1 Thanks for the proposal :) Cheers, -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
