[GSoC] PlasMate: first release proposal

[Sebastian Kügler]

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