Replies: 10 comments 4 replies
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I created the I kept the milestone itself short on purpose. This thread should stay the place where people can challenge the structure, suggest better candidates, correct assumptions, and help shape the actual roadmap. The goal is to turn the existing I think the milestone should stay curated, not become another backlog bucket. A useful first target would be a small set of accepted items, probably around 5-15 live issues/PRs, grouped by stabilization area. Proposed stabilization areasTests and CI signal Runtime, install, and platform reliability Provider and degraded-state reporting Maintainability and test hardening Security and trust boundaries Backlog hygiene and implementation-truth docs First candidate registryThis is not a decision list. It is just a first cross-reference pass over the roadmap, discussions, issues, and PRs. Each item should be re-checked live before anything is assigned. Clean or lower-risk candidates to consider first
Good candidates after cleanup, rebase, or confirmation
High-risk candidates needing maintainer/security direction
How I can helpI can help keep this practical by maintaining a links-only candidate registry, checking overlap before opening new work, validating PR state/checks/labels, and grouping candidates by roadmap area. For my own contributions, I plan to start with small test/validation work, target Feedback welcome. I would like this to become a useful execution layer for Felix’s existing roadmap and for the stabilization work people are already discussing here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Adding five more live PRs that look worth a Stabilization first pass. This is still candidate routing, not a merge/readiness decision; each should be re-checked against current Security / trust boundaries
Auth / owner state / data integrity
Provider / degraded-state / data preservation
Suggested handling: review #2404 and #3506 first as narrow security-boundary fixes, review #3539 and #3397 together because they overlap on rename behavior, and keep #3410 as a focused high-value stabilization follow-up. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree I started #3400 Odysseus now has a react native app that control the models remotely But Codex went crazy with commits so the PR is honestly way too big and needs to be split up The good news is the mobile app works and can functionally prompt Odysseus over tailscale remotely But yes coordination for stability is priority. If any small / low hanging fruits are around I'll try to be on top of it the best I can |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Adding this as a priority Stabilization v1 item, not just as four standalone bugfix candidates. I opened these four fixes after inspecting merged PRs and prior commits, then checking whether the behavior still reproduced on current That is useful cleanup work, but it is not the workflow we should rely on. These fixes are concrete examples of why #3694 should be part of Stabilization v1: risky areas need clearer review/merge rules so fewer auth, owner-scope, token, and trust-boundary bugs are found only after merge. cc @pewdiepie-archdaemon @lalalune @vdmkenny @NicholaiVogel @Michiel-VandeVelde @Bandonker @mikaelaldy @vcscsvcscs @alteixeira20 @nopoz @crazyjackel because this overlaps maintainer-owned merge policy, #2528 coordination, and the Stabilization v1 milestone shape. Security / auth / owner boundaries
Suggested Stabilization v1 handling:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Follow-up on my earlier note here so my current mobile/companion work is aligned with the Stabilization v1 framing:
If maintainers think any part of my current work belongs in Stabilization v1, I think the fit is the narrow backend slice in #3400:
That seems consistent with the stabilization thread's focus on trust boundaries, docs/tests, and small reviewable slices rather than broad new product scope. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Storage / owner integrity
Tests / CI hardening
Runtime / user-facing stabilization
Review workflow
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
This discussion is for surfacing PRs and issues that should be considered for a maintainer-owned
Stabilization v1milestone.This came out of an idea @sacb0y raised about using GitHub's existing coordination surfaces more intentionally: #2528 (reply in thread)
Normal contributors cannot create or manage milestones here, so this can be the intake lane: contributors propose candidates, maintainers decide what actually goes into the milestone.
Good candidates:
Not a good fit:
Suggested format for one candidate:
Suggested format for multiple candidates:
Please keep comments concrete: links, short reasoning, and related work. The useful part is making high-signal stabilization work easier for maintainers to find, not voting for favorite features.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions