[wp-hackers] 1.5.2 or on to 1.6?

[Michael D Adams]

The usability changes, which I would vote for as first priority, seem  
a 1.6 thing to me (perhaps this is what you intended with your first  
email).  Naturally, the items listed on the [[Version 1.6]] page on  
Codex, which look pretty hot, but I'd say come second to usability,  
are also 1.6 material.  So we've got a fairly clear idea what would  
be involved in 1.6 and its development, but when you say

> a 1.5.2 release [would focus] on incremental changes and  
> improvements to the very-solid 1.5 base

I, at least, am unclear on exactly what that would entail.  What  
sorts of things would be taken up in further 1.5 development?

mdawaffe

On May 21, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Matthew Mullenweg wrote:

> I wanted some community feedback on where we should go next with  
> development. There are basically two directions we could go right  
> now, one is to a 1.5.2 release which focuses on incremental changes  
> and improvements to the very-solid 1.5 base, or we could start  
> working on adding some major functionality changes for a 1.6  
> release. (I realize this could happen at the same time, I don't  
> think we should branch development.)
>
> There has been some excellent usability feedback has come in from  
> Gabriel White's paper, some upcoming feedback from my friend Jane  
> Wells, and WordPress will be a project at the next FLOSS usability  
> sprint at the end of July. I think there is lots of room for  
> improvement in the administration interface and improving that  
> experience could definitely be a focus of development for a good  
> while. Improvements in usability and inline help would also ease  
> the burden on the support forums.
>
> There are some pretty ambitious things on the table for 1.6:
>
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Version_1.6
>
> (Note, if we call it 1.6 doesn't that break the fibbonaci sequence?)
>
> As much more core code will be touched it's likely that  
> compatibility with some things will be broken and there will need  
> to be a long testing period.
>
> Anyway I'm curious to hear thoughts about either direction.
>
> -- 
> Matt Mullenweg