2007/10/1, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Of course, lower priority issues are going to languish a bit longer than > more pressing needs. Somebody who wants to count open tickets instead of > looking a bit deeper isn't going to like that, but since we're not > catering to that audience, it's not really a big deal. The substance is > in the ticket bodies, not their status or our response speed.
I'm sorry if I somehow offended you by counting tickets. I wanted to point out that because of the large number of "design decision needed" and the span of time some tickets are already existing *plus* the lack of an easy to browse and communicate road map, one can jump to the conclusion development is overstrained and/or unfocussed. Please note, I do *not* imply that it is that way, but it puts an otherwise great project into a bad light and makes it more difficult to argue for. I'm offering a point of view here which you - obviously - do not like but which is IMHO important to understand and to deal with. (Ignoring it is one valid way to do, but there might be better ways ;) > We intentionally removed severity and priority fields from our Trac, > since although they are very useful on one level, they are also highly > prone to be abused or misunderstood in a system where anybody can adjust > them. They added a maintenance burden that wasn't justified. I agree with that. > This means > people looking at a ticket that might still be open after a while are > going to have to spend a little bit of time searching the mailing > archives and other places (all of which show up in Google), but this > isn't a truly onerous requirement if somebody genuinely cares about an > issue. I'd like to reword (and overstate) your statement: "If you're too lazy to search for the existing information yourself, you're not worth it." Is that correct? This means, we're arguing about whose responsibility it is to provide overview and road map information. My point is: it is the responsibility of the project which wants to get considered for usage. Your (and James) point is, I think: if it was said once, it can be found. That feels elite, IMHO. I appreciate your opinion. -- Stefan Matthias Aust --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
