[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Provider and feature names
|
Hi,
a) I don't see any conflict. I didn't say that putting the project name
in front of the feature name allows you to be lazy and not have a
descriptive 2nd part. BTW even if the sorting would be better the
next thing I could talk about is searching.
b) You are right we are making a decision because of an UI but you can
not set out a rule to change things if you know there are problems
who are not yet solved. It's like people deprecating APIs and don't
provide a full replacement
Tom
On 18.11.14 07:53, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> Am 17.11.2014 um 22:26 schrieb Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I disagree with you on that. I think it has value that the project name
>> is in the feature name and the reason it simple: Better grouping on the
>> p2-Update-UI!
>
>
> Those points seems valid … but isn’t it insane how we constrain ourselves to drive a decision because of some broken UI? I actually prefer more descriptive feature names and stopped repeating the project name in features.
>
> -Gunnar
>
>
--
Thomas Schindl, CTO
BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH
Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck
http://www.bestsolution.at/
Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck
