> Hmm, so we're doing etymology too now? ;-) Next up is Deconstruction of subtasks a la Derrida :) > > Regarding subtasks. How we define subtask has been described by ploum > in one of his mail, posted about 2 weeks ago on gtg-contributors [1]: > > "In essence, a subtask B of A is a task that you consider as a > prerequisite before working on A." > > So, it's really important for us that a subtask must considered as a > prerequisite of its parent task. It thus corresponds to a "break down" > of the parent task in more detail (the aim being to refine a parent > task in subtasks until those can be performed directly), and not an > extension. > > Now, the trouble here comes from the fact that this concept is not > clearly explained or suggested in GTG. Which leads to what ploum > defined as "abuse" (cf. [1]). IMHO, "abuse" term is a bit judgmental, > but the main point is: users don't seem to understand this concept as > us, which leads to misunderstanding with the behaviour of other > functionalities. > > This is the case with the workview, which is often misunderstood. > Indeed, if subtasks are prerequisite tasks for their parent task, you > can't, by definition, perform the parent task before achieving all its > subtasks (they're exclusive). This is why the workview, which only > displays the "tasks you can actually do", hides all parent tasks (and > why those tasks disappear when you add subtasks while in the workview > mode). > > Well, this is the rationale behind all this. I think it's sound. > However, I agree that how we implemented it now lead to confusions, so > it should be rethought a bit. > > Bertrand > > [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/gtg-contributors/msg00769.html > > 2012/4/3 meg ford <[email protected]>: >> It's from Latin, yeah. Subtasks are inherently subordinate, so >> changing them does not change meaning/date of the main task. >> >> Removing today might help, but it won't solve your issue, most likely. >> However, it's up to you :) >> >> Meg >> >> 2012/4/3 Izidor Matušov <[email protected]>: >>> Am 03.04.2012 16:51, schrieb meg ford: >>> >>>> I said on the wiki that I think it should be evident that it is an xor >>>> choice- either you schedule something for today, or you move it to a >>>> different view. These should be handles differently, not as two items >>>> on a list of several. Also, you may have a bug for the subtask case, >>>> but this is the very confusing. Logically a subtask is an extension of >>>> a task, that is just the way that the term is used. It is possible to >>>> schedule an extension of a task to another day while needing to >>>> perform your main task that day. >>>> >>>> Meg >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, but I don't understand. You are right that set start date in >>> Workview mode shouldn't have item "today" because it doesn't make sense. >>> Would removing "today" solve the problem? >>> >>> When you decompose word subtask you get Latin prefix sub- and word task. >>> >>> sub- >>> A prefix that means "underneath or lower" (as in subsoil), "a subordinate or >>> secondary part of something else" (as in subphylum.), or "less than >>> completely" (as in subtropical.) >>> >>> How I understand you that you say a subtask was an extension to main task >>> and could be done after completing the main task. But it doesn't comply with >>> definition above. (and I am confused what do you want to say). > > > > -- > Bertrand Rousseau
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
