Alexia Death wrote:
> In general, its wonderful. A few notes tho. The format. It does not really
> facilitate discussion and is a bit inconvenient to follow. Perhaps a wiki
> format, tho I assume calc was selected because of the eta math? Versioning is
> a good idea regardless.
> Next, It currently assumes there is only one person at work. Wouldn't it make
> more sense to track estimated time of completion as provided by people
> on a feature, or yes, a time estimate for no caretaker or hard to assess
> items? If something has no caretaker an no estimate of completion its likely
> to be left out.
> Lastly, items on this list could use some numbered markings so one could add
> comment with a reference, say this depends on item X, cant be started before
> its done etc.
Yes, I used OO.org Calc because there are calculations that needs to be
made. It would be nice to have it more accessible but I think we can
live with it when I've added it to ./devel-docs.
The scheme does not assume there is only one person at work, the current
factor "3 days worked per week" is what I estimate that the GIMP
community currently produces together.
And IMHO, adding numbers to allow references and dependencies would
create more complexity than we currently need.
Gimp-developer mailing list