Changes:
Should Start On: sam 20.11.2004 � 01:00 -> sam 20.11.2004 � 00:00
Should be Finished on: dim 20.11.2005 � 01:00 -> dim 20.11.2005 � 00:00
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #11:
> I don't care about most of the metadata fields, ie I only >care about
whether the item is open or closed (plus why it >was closed), and who is
working on it.
But that would not be acceptable for several people that I know expecting from
the notification to be exhaustive about the changes. Reminding context is
questionnable. Mentioning change is a must, not really an option.
(remember that there are project out there, especially at CERN, that use the
trackers in a very precise workflow)
>The disappearance of the history is very inconvenient at >the moment, because
Mathieu is running through bug reports >that I don't remember of, which made
me load the tracker >www page each time.
>
>I think I would vote for a solution where you basically >have only the last
reply at the top of the mail (no >separator, no title, no heading blank line),
then the >notification as in the current trunk. The history part >should be in
a consistent order; previously you had the >original submission (oldest part),
then the follow-ups >from the newest to the oldest, which is sometimes not
easy >to read.
Considering that removing the changes section is not an option, we cannot get
rid of all separators.
Having the last reply at the top of the mail basically would defeat your own
request about having the relevant information in the very first lines of the
mail.
I found reasonnable the request to keep the history in the web interface, off
the notification. So yes, people are likely to need to use their browser if
they need it. But they are more or less forced to do that anyway, if they want
to further comment the issue. Having the history force us to use many many
more kind of separators and most of the time end up in something not very
lisible (text only is somewhat limited in this regard).
In think the only way to see these notification is to treat them like mails.
One option would be to add automatically in forms the previous message,
prefixed by >.
> Also, did you consider templatizing the notifications?
Yes, and was against.
- If it is about have site-specific templates : we loose the interest of a
tool like Savane, which is providing a way to do things (if each installation
of savane requires 3 month to get used to, it is not fine - someone who knows
savane should feel familiar on every savane installation).
- If it is about providing user-specific templates, it is likely to exhaust
the www server just as like the mail server, just to serve a few mails
(because it would have to generate one new mail per person participating to a
discussion) and... exhaust developers with a code unbearable from a
maintainance point of view.
So there's a question here: should we put back a part of the history (which
would drastically degrade lisilibity but enhance context understanding)?
Should we by default propose the content of the previous post, just like a
mailer do when you do a reply?
_______________________________________________________
This item URL is:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=1074>
_______________________________________________
Message post� via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
