An alternate approach to custom fields

[Sean McAfee]

"Jon Wilmoth" <JWilmoth at starbucks.com> wrote:
>I'm interested in custom fields and was under the impression the patch was
>"almost there"!

So was I, but other comments I've read suggest that the final implementation
may be quite different from what currently exists, from which I gather that
the existing implementation isn't considered satisfactory.

>While I think the flags are a good thing, my situation
>requires non-boolean values and disparate groups of information (i.e. what
>project the issue/bug is for AS WELL as what internal business unit(s)
>the issue impacts).  My timeframe is relatively small for implementing
>this functionality, so I'd like to offer my assistance on finalizing the
>custom fields approach immediately.

As for me, I need at least a few days to become more familiar with the code
and schema.  Then, I was planning to write up a requirements document and
solicit comments...unless someone else takes the helm in the meantime, I
suppose.

-- 
Sean McAfee -- etzwane at schwag.org