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 Goodman | "The opinions expressed by Eric do not
Workstation Support Group | represent the opinions of anyone who
UC Santa Cruz | matters."
email@example.com | — (modified from) “Cartoon Planet”
jesse reed vincent – firstname.lastname@example.org – email@example.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.