Roadmap page suggestion

[rossberg]

The roadmap is great, but the tables seem to be ordered in a fairly random fashion. I have two suggestions:

1. Sort the table of standardised features by their time of inclusion in the standard.
2. Add a column that shows the date (+ release number where available) of each feature's inclusion.

[andylizi]

How about something like this?

[rossberg]

Thanks, looks great! Yeah, I guess a tool tip works as well. Though with our new release process (minor version bump for every feature merge), it would be nice to have an actual Wasm version number column for easier reference in the future. Of course, currently everything is either 1.0 or 2.0, so a bit boring.

[rossberg]

(Should row 3 and 4 be switched?)

[andylizi]

(Should row 3 and 4 be switched?)

They are both standardized on 2020-03-11. The current sorting algorithm is to compare the phase first (descending), then compare the date (ascending), and keep the original order if they're both the same.

I guess I could sort by the names next, but I don't feel there's a particular need for that?

it would be nice to have an actual Wasm version number column for easier reference in the future

Sure, ummm, I can't seem to find that information anywhere?

[rossberg]

They are both standardized on 2020-03-11.

Ah, okay, I thought one was voted in slightly earlier, but perhaps they were merged together. I guess it doesn't matter then. (One could use average browser version as tertiary. :) )

Sure, ummm, I can't seem to find that information anywhere?

Yeah, we haven't really had versions before. So far, mutable globals were in 1.0, everything else is technically 2.0.

[andylizi]

In the end I just manually adjusted the order in features.json 😂 Do you have a preferred order for in-progress proposals (of the same phase)? Might as well do it now while we have the opportunity.

[rossberg]

For same phase? Perhaps by age, i.e., creation date (ascending) of respective repo? Not sure if that matters, though.

[RReverser]

I actually wonder if it's better to sort by name. Most devs don't care as much about standards process, so perhaps it's better to keep stage info in a hint, but use a stable sorting order rather than have features jumping around whenever they change stage.

(I'd still keep the finished/in-progress split though.)

[rossberg]

I would actually think it matters to devs whether a proposal is at phase 1 (far out) or 3 (near completion). But I agree that sudden changes in sort order appear odd if the relevant order criterion is not explicit as a column. So I would include the phase, analogous to version for finished features.