Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Provider and feature names


a) I don't see any conflict. I didn't say that putting the project name
   in front of the feature name allows you to be lazy and not have a
   descriptive 2nd part. BTW even if the sorting would be better the
   next thing I could talk about is searching.

b) You are right we are making a decision because of an UI but you can
   not set out a rule to change things if you know there are problems
   who are not yet solved. It's like people deprecating APIs and don't
   provide a full replacement


On 18.11.14 07:53, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
> Tom,
>> Am 17.11.2014 um 22:26 schrieb Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I disagree with you on that. I think it has value that the project name
>> is in the feature name and the reason it simple: Better grouping on the
>> p2-Update-UI!
> Those points seems valid … but isn’t it insane how we constrain ourselves to drive a decision because of some broken UI? I actually prefer more descriptive feature names and stopped repeating the project name in features.
> -Gunnar

Thomas Schindl, CTO EDV Systemhaus GmbH
Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck
Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck

Back to the top