Feature list for 4.0

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 28.05.08 11:39:10, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 May 2008 11:18:28 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 28.05.08 08:37:46, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 27 May 2008 23:36:28 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I'v finally finished the collection of feature ideas (and also "bugs")
> > > > that should be done before we can release KDevelop 4.0.
> > > > 
> > > > Please everybody have a look at
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.kdevelop.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=KDevelop_4/Feature_Plan
> > > > 
> > > > If anybody wants to discuss any of the items and wether they really need
> > > > to be done for 4.0, please do so here or directly in the wiki - whatever
> > > > fits you better.
> > > > 
> > > > I tried to put not too much into the 4.0 list, but I'm not sure I've
> > > > suceeded at that :)
> > > 
> > > There are few items that I think are missing:
> > > 
> > > 1. Multiple window support, which is totally broken right now.
> > > 
> > > 2. Implement the launchers framework.
> > > 
> > > 3. Finish porting debugger.
> > 
> > Yeap, will add that later, unless you beat me :)
> 
> Please go ahead -- you are thereby declared the official todo
> list keeper :-)

Done, but I'm not going to keep track of commits and then update the
wiki when a feature is started/finished. Thats too much work. Anybody
who starts a feature or works on one and finishes it is supposed to
update the table, its as easy as replacing the first column with either
"FeatureInProgress" or "FeatureDone".

> > > 5. C++ support. I think there are few things to be added to
> > >    reach usable feature parity with other IDEs:
> > > 
> > > 	- Outline of the current class/quick open of method
> > > 	in current class. Presently, there's no easy way
> > > 	to do this.
> > > 
> > > 	- Find all uses of a symbol. Build call graph (which
> > > 	functions call this one)
> > 
> > I have those on my list, but under KDevelop 4.x (x>0) because I don't
> > think they're really _that_ important for the 4.0 release. For me its
> > fine if we reach feature-completeness for C++ compared to KDevelop3.5
> 
> Dunno. Maybe you're right.

As far as I can see we might get some of them into 4.0 anyway due to
SoC. Maybe we should have "nice to have for 4.0, but can be delayed"
category?

Andreas

-- 
Future looks spotty.  You will spill soup in late evening.