To be clear,
Stability is significantly more important to me than feature-richness.
RT 2.0 will not have significantly more bells and whistles than 1.0. What it
will have is a much cleaner architecture and a significantly improved code base.
Most, if not all, of the feature suggestions I’ve made approving noises about
are things that are in consideration for versions after 2.0.
JesseOn Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:33:47AM -0700, Eric Goodman wrote:
Jesse and Tobias,
Given the number of feature requests (and apparent feature request
acceptances) that have come over the list, I wanted to make a general
comment. While I’m just as feature happy as the next guy, it’s more
important to me to have a stable product than a feature-rich product.
I appreciate the flexibility you two are showing in responding to
these requests (and I like the idea of allowing feature expansion
through Perl externals that we write ourselves). At the same time, if
I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable product, I should
probably just go and buy something like Remedy™.
Point being, what you have is great, and the features you are looking
to add sound great also, but don’t feel like you need to add all of
those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
— Eric
–
Eric Goodman | “The opinions expressed by Eric do not
Workstation Support Group | represent the opinions of anyone who
UC Santa Cruz | matters.”
ericg@cats.ucsc.edu | — (modified from) “Cartoon Planet”
rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
jesse reed vincent – jrvincent@wesleyan.edu – jesse@fsck.com
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
This is scary. I’m imagining tracerouting you and seeing links like “Route
84” and “Route 9, Exit 14”. Obviously, this is illness induced.
–Cana McCoy
Often so many bells and whistles are added to software,
that when you shake it, it breaks.
I would expect that the RT development plans run along this lines…
v1: Get the damn thing running…
v1+: Fix what’s broken.
v2: Get the damn thing running cleanly…
v2+: Fix what’s broken when it really shouldn’t be broken.
v3: Implement all those annoying feature requests I keep getting.
v3+: Fix what I just broke.
Assuming the version 2 will be cleanly implemented and structured, then most
of the little features will be very easy to implement. About the only feature
I’d care to see included in version 2.0 is loose subject matching, and slightly
better configuration options for queues - Maybe I’m missing something, but I
don’t think it’s possible at present for all queue members to be notified of a
new request, but that once it’s taken, only the owner receives correspondance.
Even that second feature should be easy to implement once RT has been cleaned
up.
Anyway, that’s my 2p.
-Feargal.
Feargal Reilly,
Systems Administrator,
The Communications Interactive Agency.
Phone: +353-86-8157621On Wed, 03 May 2000, Jesse wrote:
To be clear,
Stability is significantly more important to me than feature-richness.
RT 2.0 will not have significantly more bells and whistles than 1.0. What it
will have is a much cleaner architecture and a significantly improved code base.
Most, if not all, of the feature suggestions I’ve made approving noises about
are things that are in consideration for versions after 2.0.
Jesse
On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:33:47AM -0700, Eric Goodman wrote:
Jesse and Tobias,
Given the number of feature requests (and apparent feature request
acceptances) that have come over the list, I wanted to make a general
comment. While I’m just as feature happy as the next guy, it’s more
important to me to have a stable product than a feature-rich product.
I appreciate the flexibility you two are showing in responding to
these requests (and I like the idea of allowing feature expansion
through Perl externals that we write ourselves). At the same time, if
I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable product, I should
probably just go and buy something like Remedy™.
Point being, what you have is great, and the features you are looking
to add sound great also, but don’t feel like you need to add all of
those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
— Eric
–
Eric Goodman | “The opinions expressed by Eric do not
Workstation Support Group | represent the opinions of anyone who
UC Santa Cruz | matters.”
ericg@cats.ucsc.edu | — (modified from) “Cartoon Planet”
rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
–
jesse reed vincent – jrvincent@wesleyan.edu – jesse@fsck.com
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
This is scary. I’m imagining tracerouting you and seeing links like “Route
84” and “Route 9, Exit 14”. Obviously, this is illness induced.
–Cana McCoy
rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Jesse and Tobias,
Given the number of feature requests (and apparent feature request
acceptances) that have come over the list, I wanted to make a general
comment. While I’m just as feature happy as the next guy, it’s more
important to me to have a stable product than a feature-rich product.
I appreciate the flexibility you two are showing in responding to
these requests (and I like the idea of allowing feature expansion
through Perl externals that we write ourselves). At the same time, if
I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable product, I should
probably just go and buy something like Remedy™.
Point being, what you have is great, and the features you are looking
to add sound great also, but don’t feel like you need to add all of
those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
— Eric
Eric Goodman | “The opinions expressed by Eric do not
Workstation Support Group | represent the opinions of anyone who
UC Santa Cruz | matters.”
ericg@cats.ucsc.edu | — (modified from) “Cartoon Planet”
(Off topic, but I couldn’t refrain despite better judgement. 
At the same time, if I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable
product, I should
probably just go and buy something like Remedy™.
Good gawd! Please tell me you are kidding…
I just had to say something since I have had some rather awful
experiences with Remedy.
-Rich
Rich West mailto:rwest@wesmo.com
Wesmo Computer Services http://www.wesmo.com
Get your name out there!
Register your domain for ONLY $14.95/yr!
Visit http://www.wesmo.com for details!
Eric Goodman wrote:
. . . important to me to have a stable product than a feature-rich
product.
. . . but don’t feel like you need to add all of
those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
I agree! The package is nice and lean and works well in v1.0.2 even!
Its better than help desk tools I have used in some big companies in my 4+
years working help desk. Personally I like it better than Remedy too.
the features you are looking
to add sound great also, but don’t feel like you need to add all of
those features for a 2.0 version to be a success.
Yeah, I agree to this - there might be that we have to postpone quite some
of those things until after 2.0 (I guess I have said “will be easy to
add” for many of the features, haven’t I? That means they will come in
some post-2.0 version if and only if somebody actually implement those
features
Anyway, quite some of the features the general public wants are really
essensial. I do by all means priority the features that is essensial for
my employer, and I am afraid that I occasionally have promised a bit more
than what we can keep.
Tobias Brox
aka TobiX
+47 22 925 871
At the same time, if I want a totally feature-rich, custom-configurable
product, I should
probably just go and buy something like Remedy™.
Good gawd! Please tell me you are kidding…
I just had to say something since I have had some rather awful
experiences with Remedy.
Oh … I thought “buying Remedy” just ment something like quitting the job
and becoming a fulltime heroin addict or something similar
Tobias Brox
aka TobiX
+47 22 925 871