3.0 Status Update #3208
Replies: 7 comments 18 replies
-
|
Hello Dustin, Thanks a lot for your report! Although I've several times tried other applications (e.g. org-mode), I regularly return back toTaskwarrior and now even plan to use it along with Timewarrior. 😇 I can live without taskserver, although it would be a nice one to have, but I wonder what is the status of "recurring overhaul" which was supposed to be one of the main 3.0 features? Sincerely, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't know of anyone working on that over the last few years. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
So, it looks that the "TaskChampion" has become 3.0's theme instead of "Recurrence Overhaul". 😎 Well, as long as it gives new life to Taskwarrior, it's fine. 😉 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If someone is working on it, or starts to do so, then we can include that in 3.0 -- or 4.0! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Build version 3.0 today and it seems to be fine :) Really exited to see new taskchampion-sync-server someday! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Maybe a silly question but why are these release blockers? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It's a reasonable question, but both of those address what is otherwise a regression in functionality: sync support and task history. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok, I get that for task history but I'd question whether sync support is really a regression. AFAIK all the "public" taskd instances are now dead so that doesn't seem like a fair bar to compete with. Isn't self-hosting the current sync server comparable to self-hosting taskd? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You're right that self-hosting taskd is not easy, but I think the current taskchampion-sync-server is even worse. An alternativ to the cloud backend would be to improve the sync server. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is the ability to store Taskwarrior data as text/JSON going to go away with the next release? I understand the benefits of using SQLite to store data, but I prefer to use Git to back up, sync, and version control my Taskwarrior data. Using Git has always seemed like the easiest method to sync tasks between computers, versus having to set up tasksever (or Taskchampion). But using Git to sync and version control a binary database file is almost pointless, so I would prefer to keep my Taskwarrior data in plaintext/JSON that Git works well with. Will that be an option in future releases? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I wonder if we were too hasty to kill off the "VCS backup" documentation in f2c8a23. (context: I believe deleting it was my idea/suggestion.) It seems like it's still viable if you track export/import json rather than the new sql database itself. Given the current difficulty/complexity of sync server deployment, reliability concerns, and the fact that use of the sync server eliminates undo operations, it seems like there might still be good reasons to choose this method. Maybe we should re-introduce it with some updates? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah that seems like a good idea -- whether in the manpage or on taskwarrior.org. I don't quite understand how it would work so I can't write that particular doc :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Also prefer the ability to store tasks in plain text (I have my tasks versioned too). This wrapper script lets the tasks be stored as plain-text using sqlite3's dump functionality, it's clunky but it works well enough. https://gist.github.com/ideasman42/bbd06fd41d45734463dd40a84cd1a4ba |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@ideasman42 Is there a reason to prefer using sqlite directly over |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@ryneeverett The issue with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I made a project to track this. Please add any other things you think are blocking a 3.0 release! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The link is 404 and I can't find it. :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Very weird to restrict at such high privilege level. Flipped to public, it should work now! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We are nearing the end of the 3.0 project. I'd love to hear about other issues that might be blocking a 3.0 release! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What follows is a brief summary of what is going on for the next (major) release of Taskwarrior, from my perspective.
Changes
The major changes in 3.0 are around how task data is stored and accessed. Locally, task data is stored in a more reliable format (SQLite). Sync is more reliable and task data is encrypted so that server operators cannot read it. All of this is accomplished by using Taskchampion, the new "core" of Taskwarrior. The change has a few future-facing benefits, in addition to the immediate benefits above: other applications can embed Taskchampion to integrate with Taskwarrior or automate task operations; and it is written in a language (Rust) that is attractive to new contributors and may help to rejuvenate the Taskwarrior development community.
Status
The bulk of the implementation is complete: Taskchampion can store and sync task data, and Taskwarrior has been refactored to use Taskchampion. On a personal level, I've been using the newest Taskwarrior at work for almost a year, with no difficulties.1
A few things are still not ready, though.
Some existing functionality isn't yet supported, notably the "task history" in
task infois gone (removed in #3060) andtask undono longer gives a summary of what is undone. There's discussion of how to fix those (#2928).The sync story is barely an MVP. The new taskchampion-sync-server is even more bare-bones than
taskserver(which it replaces), and is missing some peformance-related functionality (#2877, and it only supports a SQLite backend). It would probably be difficult to deploy "for real". There is some discussion of fixing the space-saving issues, and also discussion of using commercial cloud services' object storage as an alternative (#3185). This would likely be far cheaper than running the sync server on a VM, and potentially easier for less-technical people to set up. There is also discussion of improvements to the privacy of task data (#3183), although it's not clear that is required for a 3.0 release.There's quite a bit of clean-up of documentation to do, as well, to clarify the boundaries between Taskwarrior and Taskchampion and how to integrate with Taskchampion (#2868).
Nice-To-Haves
We've set a few things to the side for the moment, to try to focus on getting to 3.0. However, we may work on these anyway if there's interest or if they prove useful.
Progress
I've run out of steam on this project after a few years' work. I get excited from working with other people, so that's where I've found myself spending time -- whether that's working with new folks on good-first-bugs or co-designing things with more experienced developers. So, I don't have any timeline for the "not ready yet" bits. To my knowledge, there isn't any ongoing development work by other maintainers at this time.
I think the quickest path to 3.0 is for someone to do the bulk of the work on a cloud-service backend (#3185), and someone (else) to do the bulk of the work implementing and exposing operations (#2928).
[1] I'm not using the sync functionality, though -- it's not required or useful in this context.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions