New language discussion?
jmdesp at alussinan.org
Wed Oct 31 14:05:17 UTC 2007
Benton, Kevin wrote:
> We're (AMD) actively working on a radical shift in the way that "custom"
> fields are being done by providing a field scheme model of implementing
> "custom" fields. We prefer to call those "custom" fields "add-on"
> fields rather than custom. Once the code support them, then they truly
> will be add-on fields. While we're doing field schemes that allow
> administrators to select what fields are available by product, we're
> also developing workflow schemes in the same methodology so that each
> product can have its own workflow. There are many different workflow
> needs within our company based on the type of work being done. Some
> processes have an extra documentation step, some have an extra
> incorporation step, and there are many others. Not all products need
> the extra steps so workflow schemes will allow us to assign those
> workflows on a per-product basis.
I think this is great work, and it's too bad it ends up behind closed
doors only because of the difficulty to integrate it.
I think you would render a great service to everybody by providing it as
fork is an ugly word, but the truth is you already have that fork, and
in addition to being a fork, nobody can see it. So it would be a
positive move to make it a public fork instead of a private one.
Then, there would be a chance that someone else does the ugly work
needed to integrate it, or at least that bugzilla gets some of it's most
interesting/easy to integrate elements.
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
More information about the developers