CiviCRM Community Forums (archive)

Lucy:

Note that we are nowhere close to deciding feature set for 2.0 as of yet. We decide the feature set for the next version (i.e. 1.8 ). All the ones that dont make it into 1.8 get pushed into the next release (2.0 in this case). This is just a placeholder for now and by no means is an indicator of the 2.0 feature set.

2.0 will not support php4 / mysql4 and we will revisit and improve the schema and core code (i.e. the upgrade will be non-trivial). I'm not very sure how many new features we'll add into 2.0 at this stage, since the main focus will be to improve a few core things. Some things high on our list include search re-architecture, custom data redesign and improved permisioning. The rest we'll decide when we are done with 1.8. I suspect 2.0 will have a slightly longer development cycle than our previous releases. So approx 4 months or so after 1.8 is released would be my best guess

lobo

hey lucy:

being able to contribute resources and doing the work yourself is an excellent first step . We'll be glad to work with you regarding either of the below. I'd put pledges a bit higher than recurring events, since it would be good to get some feedback from the community regarding events before we take the next step of implementing complex events (multi-day / recurring events etc)

There has been some spec with regard to pledges, here are a couple of wiki pages:

http://wiki.civicrm.org/confluence/display/CRM/Feature+requests+for+Soft+Credit+Matching+Gifts+Pledges
http://wiki.civicrm.org/confluence/display/CRM/Proposal+for+a+Pledge+Drive+Module

So the first step would be a description of what you org needs and how to potentially extend CiviCRM. We recently did this with Event price sets. (http://wiki.civicrm.org/confluence/display/CRM/Price+Sets). This might help you get an idea of whats needed. We can then chat on IRC and figure out a development plan and help u get going.

Depending on your availability and the complexity of what you'll want regarding the two items below, we could potentially get one of them in for 1.8

lobo

Lucy:

can u please format and post on wiki. Would also be great if u take a look at the other two wiki pledge pages and incorporate some good ideas and points which might make the spec more complete. Note that, we can decide to defer some of those complex pieces if so. You can put the wiki page under this hierarchy

http://wiki.civicrm.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1140

Once done, can you please send an email to the development list, civicrm-dev. http://lists.civicrm.org. We'll wait for a day or so to see if other folks comment on it. At the same time, DGG and myself will review it and give u feedback. I know of quite a few orgs who are interested and will hopefully jump on the opportunity and give feedback.

Once we can agreement on the spec, we can figure out implementation strategies and just do it We are glad that you are walking the walk Let me know if u need more details or clarifications. I took a brief look at your description and looks like a good start

lobo