a Roadmap/history section, when it will be available the expected release where a feature, a fix or a new package/hardware enhancement will be available
A Feature category, where talk about which features are interesting, necessary or totally lacking to IpFire (which reminds me Multi Red support… ). It will increase a bit the mess of the discussion, but i think it will help the projects developer and management to evaluate the interest and the explainations about why a feature is requested, also including case history and comparing to other projects or appliances.
We do not really plan it like that ourselves, but use the blog to announce any upcoming updates and so on. Check that one out.
I understand your intention of this, but unfortunately this has always been abused by many people to put pressure on the developers and push their own agenda. And that is something we do not need.
We have a bug tracker which tracks feature requests too and probably the best place to talk to the devs is the development mailing list instead of this support forum. Let’s see if we can talk there. If this doesn’t work out we can add more categories later.
Short answer is “hell no” for both? Well, i would like to say that’s not pleasant.
I read the blog since was not called blog, so i am aware about current arrangement of the project. Which is asking to users and followers to change something. I can live with that.
But also users and followers should able to ask the project how to change, when it will change, when it changed.
So… suggest features, explain user cases, ask for improvements of community infrastructure. Every tool can be abused, but the meaning of the community should be helping the project to grow. And this kind of approach, i am sorry to say does not help.
I won’t file any bug, because currently i have no working installation of IPFire. After an update on ESXi IPFire went kernel panic at boot, so it were replaced with temporary setup of another distro. Which became permanent when another ISP were subscribed (redundant connection for allow VOIP fault tolerance).
Currently Ipfire is not the first, or the second, even into first five options for setup a firewall. I don’t like that, because considering different products/project for network gateway gives opportunities, more tools, more ways to do something. Also, gives opportunity to feel a bit less insecure when a vulnerability is disclosed, so the patch-rush is slower and thinner than have the same solution everywhere.
I hope that this speech won’t be classified as “another buggy user who want harass us”. That’s not the goal. I hope that IPFire project will consider the opportunity to change a bit, not only being pleased by people who stands for choices…
I really do not have the time to go into full detail here, but as you are writing this, you do not seem to expect me anyways.
I don not think that you as a single person are trying to harass me here, but as group people do that sometimes. Everyone has wishes for features and what not, but we cannot all have them fulfilled. You can see how many conversations I have had with people who want it all and not contribute a thing, then engages others and try to put pressure on me and other developers. And if you think that is a healthy community, I do not know what an unhealthy one looks like.
There is a place where to bring those things up and it is well documented. We do not need to have more than one of them.