Talk:Roadmap
Minimum PHP requirement
Yes, this should be well specified on the page--Séverin Terrier 02:47, 5 November 2008 (CST)
Student Information API for version 2.0
Also on a related point the student API which is down for version 2.0. Is there any more detail to here on this yet? Will this be part of the IMS Enterprise data model and therefore enrolments plug in or will someone be working on a Moodle SIF agent? In the UK SIF is likely to take off as the DfES via Becta are currently consulting on a UK SIF model and piloting SIF in Birmingham and Northern Ireland. I believe that SIF is used quite widely in the US?
Wiki engine
I noticed there was some talk about making new wiki module for 1.9... what do "nWiki" and "DF wiki" refer to? I've searched online and haven't found a clear description of what these mean. I am curious if they are still based on MediaWiki. I would hate to see some of the great features of MediaWiki (mainly the scalability) be lost. When MediaWiki is configured with Memcached and Squid caching servers, they can serve thousands of requests per second: hard to beat!
Thanks,
-Sean Colombo 00:12, 13 January 2008 (CST)
None of the wikis are based on Mediawiki. Mediawiki is very difficult to use as a basis for a Moodle wiki, because of all the special features we need. Martin Dougiamas 22:10, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
You can see Dfwiki page to more details and links. --Ne Nashev 16:57, 28 February 2009 (CST)
about nwiki
Seems that nwiki will be inside for 2.0. Nwiki IMPLEMENTS the mediawiki markup, and the old features of the current wiki for backwards compatibility... and that is what makes it so difficult. Is really hard.
You migth get by the Using moodle wiki forum and we can discuss about it. Cheers. --Ludo (Marc Alier) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (CST)
About WS ?
Where fit the WS layer in the roadmap?
IMS LIT 2.0 compliance ?
- Wimba is working with IMS to develop an activity module that acts as a consumer of the IMS LTI 2.0 standard...
- We in UPC (dfwikiteam) are working in a way to make the moodle course a IMS LTI 2.0 producer ...
shall this be included somewhere in the roadmap?--Ludo (Marc Alier) 01:05, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Site-wide groups
Site-wide (or, preferrable, context-wide) groups is much needed improvement (see votes for MDL-11826), especially in large institutions. Can it be targeted to 2.0?
Yes, it would really help lot of people... --Séverin Terrier 16:57, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
MDL-15416 seems to have been tagged for 2.0 by Petr :) Matt Gibson 10:46, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
It says: " Global groups - Global groups are not implemented in 1.9. They are not going to be implemented at the database level. Instead some other solution should be present in 2.0. This will require patching of enrolment framework and group/lib.php" in https://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:Groups#Global_groups - any word on whether this is planned any more definitley in 2.0?? --Derek Chirnside 06:32, 7 October 2008 (CDT)
Minted course profile plugin
This was scheduled for 1.9, but didn't make it. Any plans to include it in 2.0? It seems to have vanished. Matt Gibson 10:47, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
Instructor-led Training Session Management
In several of the projects we work on there is a very real need to manage instructor-led sessions by booking training rooms and assigning trainers. I've always felt that Moodle is so advanced in many areas but this is something that is not really catered for. Developing this will mean that Moodle can comfortably handle blended-learning.
There has been some fantastic work done on the Face-to-Face contrib module and the integration of the MRBS module. But in my experience, what's needed is actually a combination of the two systems that integrates to the Moodle calandar and other standard components.
I'd be happy to spec out the requirements and test in real environments.
Craig Meltzer
[1]
Subscribe at the thread level & Book Module
I notice in the tracker http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL-1626 there is a request for the ability for notification (subscription) at the thread level, not just the forum level. It says it is in 2.0 in the tracker. What does this mean? Is this definite, since it is not mentioned in the roadmap? Is it too small an enhancement to justify comment in the roadmap? To what level of detail does the roadmap get maintained?
I note there is a request for the book module to be in the core. http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/CONTRIB-283 But it does not have a fix version indicated. Does that mean the request is not considered significant to be included in 2.0?? --Derek Chirnside 02:56, 6 July 2008 (CDT)
Blog & Comments in 2.0
This is a similar comment to above. There is a lot of talk about blogs on the various forums here in Moodle.org, and in particular the Moodle implmentation of them.
Particularly here: http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=94623#p418128 and here: http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=44830&mode=3
There is an issue tracker here: http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL-8776 but there doesn't seem to be any sort of focus to the discussion in the details. From the roadmap: comments are coming. What about the other suggestions in the tracker? Where do we find out what is coming and what is planned? How are decisions arrived at?
I'm curious about the OU blogs as well. --Derek Chirnside 03:13, 6 July 2008 (CDT)
No longer called Activitiy locking
Now called: Conditional activities. I like this terminology change. Activity locking is a little more draconican and control sounding. And there is good reason to avoid the term "Selective Release".
I'd really like it to be very very simple. A linear pathway being easy to construct, with any possible complex stuff hidden in an advanced tab. Most of what the lecturers do here is like that. --Derek Chirnside 03:18, 6 July 2008 (CDT)
are calendar improvements planned?
Is there any plan to change the way calendar are used in moodle?
- Hi, as the calendar is not mentioned in the roadmap, I don't think there is any plan to change the way it is used. However, this situation may change according to available funding and developers. --Helen Foster 08:39, 18 November 2008 (CST)
Support for Simple content management on the front page of Moodle (like Janne's CMS)
Is this feature still in the plans as it was when MDL-10285 was flagged with: "Fix Version/s: 2.0" on March 20, 2008?
Is this all for 2.0 really?
It seems that Moodle 2.0 is too feature loaded by now (one may even think that there will be no 2.1). It's development cycle already seems to be more than year, and it's heavily loaded with complex features. There are some disadvantages in this:
- there is some functionality in the HEAD already, that can be useful to people and address important issues, but can't be merged to 1.9 - but it is inaccessible to the productional use because of general instability of the HEAD, and concerning later information it will be inaccessible for quite some time (while Moodle developers often referred on issues fixed in 2.0 as if people can just get and use them)
- there are concerns about stability of the resulting release with so many complex features added at once, without general use and testing some of them in production environment - it may well be worse than with roles in Moodle 1.7
Maybe there can be an intermediate release, some sort of 1.10 or 2.0.0, (or what it can be, titles are no important) version with part of the new functionality added, so the people can start use it (and give more real word testing too)? --Oleg Sychev 06:40, 29 November 2008 (CST)
Martin Dougiamas 00:59, 22 December 2008 (CST): Well, a lot has been been left for later already (2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc). About testing, 2.0 will have a very long testing period to avoid situations like 1.7 (and people are already helping with testing). It's easy to say "make more interim releases" but each of these has a huge cost on our pace ... after a release new development basically stops for months, which means that some of the features coming next year in 2.0 would take even longer to arrive. Currently most of the roadmap is all proceeding at the same time (different people working on things) and we are simultaneously patching 1.9.x still. Then again there a few things that might hold up 2.0 and could still be cut, depending on volunteers, funding etc. It's a balancing act, but I think we're charting the right course for an impressive 2.0 in decent time.
