Update ROADMAP.md

[duglin]

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis [email protected]

[vbatts]

Thanks for writing up this from our f2f discussions.
I'm taking a look.

[duglin]

this is from the OCI F2F (Jan 11/12)

[vbatts]

This is my wording verbatim.

[wking]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:24:14AM -0800, Vincent Batts wrote:

Protobuf Config

We currently have only one language binding for the spec and that is Go.
If we change the specs format in the respository to be something like protobuf then the generation for multiple language bindings become effortless.

+Not going to do it

This is my wording verbatim.

So close #185 with some notes on why? I'm fine with closing that
door, but I expect we can explain the reasoning more clearly than
“this needs a step back” 1. Maybe just “we like #276 better because
$REASONS”?

[vbatts]

That's what we're working on right now. :-)

[wking]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:11:23PM -0800, Vincent Batts wrote:

That's what we're working on right now. :-)

Excellent :). I don't see the need to land #300 with WIP wording and
follow-up PRs, but as long as the motivation gets documented
somewhere, I'm happy.

[vbatts]

Per discussion, perhaps I should open an PR that includes the discussion of a common distribution format spec in this ROADMAP.md for 1.0

[LK4D4]

LGTM

[vbatts]

LGTM

[wking]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:26:05AM -0800, Vincent Batts wrote:

Per discussion, perhaps I should open an PR that includes the
discussion of a common distribution format spec in this ROADMAP.md
for 1.0

Isn't there already a distribution-format PR (#293)? And I think the
feeling there was that discussion should be happening on the list
[1,2].

[vbatts]

@wking Two things, I'm referring to having something like #293 formally on the roadmap for 1.0. Secondly, as has been already said, there is active, open discussion of this happening in the face2face meeting.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AtpEgQOc0lzuwRIJuPZgCHdYz4olpTwszsCoeRR1_r4/edit are the notes and agenda.

[wking]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:38:15AM -0800, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking Two things, I'm referring to having something like #293
formally on the roadmap for 1.0.

Ah, putting #293 on the roadmap makes more sense to me than opening a
new PR.

Secondly, as has been already said, there is active, open discussion
of this happening in the face2face meeting.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AtpEgQOc0lzuwRIJuPZgCHdYz4olpTwszsCoeRR1_r4/edit
are the notes and agenda.

Yeah, I'm occasionally checking in on the Google Doc, but pushing
comments in there seems like it would just be annoying, and I don't
have time to join in on the audio. On the other hand, by the time
something from that discussion bubbles back over here, it seems like
GitHub comments are appropriate.