Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:44 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:

> I am not sure what the timeframe is for every feature btw. The intention
> is to order them by need, and deliver in multiple stages. So some
> features might be missing for 6 months, some only for a month. Further,
> some might be available from the start.

Well, then we should make sure that at least the most necessary features
are there since the beginning, or will be missing for the least time
possible (i.e. not more than 2-3 weeks).
If, once decided which are the priorities, that's granted, you have a
big +1 from me.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]