On 02/04/11 17:22, ext Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > Hey, > > Thiago and I spent a few hours yesterday brainstorming about > requirements for the review tool. Here's the list we came up with: > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmiZdoBOliRYdEptNEk2Y1pzeTZoY0RRRWt1ZW9IaFE&hl=en > > The weights are based on our initial gut-feel, but we'd like feedback on: > > - Should the features be weighed differently? > - Are there other features we want to see in this tool? > - Are there other tools than the ones listed that we should survey? > > The plan is to do the surveying and discussions here on the mailing > list. See the rating key in the document for how to rate candidates. > > I'll update the document accordingly when we reach somewhat consensus :-)
Most of it seems sensible. A few points though: - "W19 - Abandon review - 3" - Is this basically to close a review after there has been no activity or it has been rejected? If I understand correctly what this is, I would give it 5, since without this the view of active reviews will be cluttered with old junk (basically what we have with merge requests today). - About the command line tool (several entries): I would love to have a command line tool myself, but is it really absolutely mandatory? I would hate to hold back the rest because the command line tool protocol isn't done. -- Kristian _______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
