On 2/5/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/4/13, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > I expect that many users would be > willing to adopt Bloodhound just on the basis of the new interface, > dashboard, etc ...
TBH , we've needed a bit more than that . But it's been the starting point to attract further attention and feedback ... > and the possibility of new features on the horizon just > makes it more appealing. ... and so far we've been able to satisfy user needs , beyond default BH installation . So far only in a single deployment has been abandoned and was due to the fact the Trac Git plugin was causing some trouble and could not work with remote repos . [...] > >> > 1. We do not offer much new to current Trac users with additional >> drawbacks >> > of being a bit behind the latest Trac version, >> > risk of plugin compatibility problems and even some new usability >> > quirks for a good measure >> > 2. To anyone not satisfied with what Trac has to offer, we can not give >> > more than promises right now >> > >> >> Add to the list the fact that clients making use of version control >> and repositories will reject right away our current offer . That's why >> the instances we have deployed always include the patches for #162 and >> related vcs tickets . >> >> Should we schedule them for release 5 ? > > > Yes, I think so. I suggested to Gary that yesterday that I'd work to apply > your patches in #162 this week. > Thanks ! That will allow us to not maintain the patches as trunk evolves ... > It's great to hear that you are deploying instances! > Not as many as I'd like to ... but hoping more will come with time . ;) -- Regards, Olemis.
