Am 04.03.2012 um 23:21 schrieb Christopher Brooks: > > This has the potential to get very dangerous and messy. Are there ways > we can mitigate it? We have a code review process, though I don't know > that I've been added as a reviewer on anything done outside of my > institution in a *long time*, so perhaps this process is failing to > help build consensus...is a design review process necessary? > > I see both (1) and (2) happening with respect to the episode service. > We have alot of features planned for 1.4, and most features seem to be > developed by individual institutions, so I imagine that we're going to > see alot more of (1) and (2). But a product without a cohesive UX is > not good for adopters. > > Maybe we can brainstorm this at an upcoming dev meeting?
It's a good idea to brainstorm some rules in next Dev Meeting. When I read the mail I had a third scenario in my mind: the institution develop their feature in branches and every developer think his feature is the most important one that has to be placed most prominent. So if it rum worst, when we merge the feature into trunk, all features where linked from the same place. in worst case the welcome page ;-) It is very important to have a process that helps us to define, where a feature is placed and what style it has. Nils --- Nils Hendrik Birnbaum IT-Consultant Requirements Engineer
_______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
