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 > working > 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 > a > comment with a reference, say this depends on item X, cant be started before > its done etc.
Hi Kaja, 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. / Martin _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
