-0
I don't see a benefit in moving the workflows somewhere, where they will
not be tested for sure and will certainly deprecate. When they remain in
the distribution they can be part of the QA.
On the otherhand I would see a benefit of a good documentation of every
workflow in the wiki and how these can be connected. But simply putting
the workflow into the wiki will not help from my point of view.
The next question would be, what the default workflow definition will
contain? Will we add as many workflows to this file as possible?
So I am not opposing this but I would say that we need some more clarity
on what will be done here.
Rüdiger
Am 18.09.2012 17:51, schrieb Tobias Wunden:
Hi all,
at the developer meeting we discussed that it makes sense for Matterhorn to be
shipped with one working and documented workflow only instead of many
workflows, most of which are not working since barely used. Instead, the
#proposal is to put additional workflows into the wiki.
The respective ticket has been created at [1]
Tobias
[1] http://opencast.jira.com/browse/MH-9187
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
--
________________________________________________
Rüdiger Rolf, M.A.
Universität Osnabrück - Zentrum virtUOS
Heger-Tor-Wall 12, 49069 Osnabrück
Telefon: (0541) 969-6511 - Fax: (0541) 969-16511
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.virtuos.uni-osnabrueck.de
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
