feargal at thecia
May 3, 2000, 3:55 PM
Post #2 of 2
Often so many bells and whistles are added to software,
Re: [rt-users] Feature Requests (general)
[In reply to]
that when you shake it, it breaks.
I would expect that the RT development plans run along this lines...
v1: Get the damn thing running...
v1+: Fix what's broken.
v2: Get the damn thing running cleanly...
v2+: Fix what's broken when it really shouldn't be broken.
v3: Implement all those annoying feature requests I keep getting.
v3+: Fix what I just broke.
Assuming the version 2 will be cleanly implemented and structured, then *most*
of the little features will be very easy to implement. About the only feature
I'd care to see included in version 2.0 is loose subject matching, and slightly
better configuration options for queues - Maybe I'm missing something, but I
don't think it's possible at present for all queue members to be notified of a
new request, but that once it's taken, only the owner receives correspondance.
Even that second feature should be easy to implement once RT has been cleaned
Anyway, that's my 2p.
The Communications Interactive Agency.
On Wed, 03 May 2000, Jesse wrote:
> To be clear,
> Stability is significantly more important to me than feature-richness.
> RT 2.0 will _not_ have significantly more bells and whistles than 1.0. What it
> will have is a much cleaner architecture and a significantly improved code base.
> Most, if not all, of the feature suggestions I've made approving noises about
> are things that are in consideration for versions after 2.0.
> On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:33:47AM -0700, Eric Goodman wrote:
> > Jesse and Tobias,
> > Given the number of feature requests (and apparent feature request
> > acceptances) that have come over the list, I wanted to make a general
> > comment. While I'm just as feature happy as the next guy, it's more
> > important to me to have a stable product than a feature-rich product.
> > I appreciate the flexibility you two are showing in responding to
> > these requests (and I like the idea of allowing feature expansion
> > through Perl externals that we write ourselves). At the same time, if
> > I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable product, I should
> > probably just go and buy something like Remedy(tm).
> > Point being, what you have is great, and the features you are looking
> > to add sound great also, but don't feel like you need to add all of
> > those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
> > --- Eric
> > --
> > Eric Goodman | "The opinions expressed by Eric do not
> > Workstation Support Group | represent the opinions of anyone who
> > UC Santa Cruz | matters."
> > ericg [at] cats | --- (modified from) "Cartoon Planet"
> > _______________________________________________
> > rt-users mailing list
> > rt-users [at] lists
> > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> jesse reed vincent -- jrvincent [at] wesleyan -- jesse [at] fsck
> pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
> This is scary. I'm imagining tracerouting you and seeing links like "Route
> 84" and "Route 9, Exit 14". Obviously, this is illness induced.
> --Cana McCoy
> rt-users mailing list
> rt-users [at] lists