[ham] Re: quoting, tasks, semantics

[Kristis Makris]

On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 20:11, Christopher Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > IMO, the bug should remain the individual unit. If it's too heavyweight for a 
> > particular use, the interface can be customised to remove many of the fields. 
> > You can track a group of connected bugs using the dependency tree view.
> 
> I once felt that bugs and tasks were semantically similar enough to share 
> the same underlying structure and just have a flag indicating "which kind 
> it is", but the groupware integration I'm imagining would work much 
> smoother if tasks were their own thing.  Most of the groupware apps have a 
> task concept on their own.  I'm not expecting it to be rocket science to 
> allow a user to create/complete tasks within the groupware or bugzilla. 
> I'll show you the results in a few weeks hopefully.

How about proposing to users a convention where task bugs are flagged
with a keyword (e.g. TASK or REQ), and have them define custom queries
to display tasks. Then a bug can serve both roles, tasks and sub-bugs.
And the groupware integration can behave differently when a bug has this
keyword set.