On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:00:53PM -0000, Luca Invernizzi wrote:
> It might be a little bit confusing, but it would be quite handy too.
> It would even be quite trivial to implement.
> The too-many-tasks problem is not completely solved with this
> approach though, and I don't see an easy solution to that.
>
> My long term goal, when we implement searches and saved searches (or
> "views", in SQL terms), was to show one of those in the applet.
Yeah we've had some discussions on the list regarding prioritization
schemes. My guess is as new filtering/sorting/prioritizing systems
become available, the indicator can hook into whichever of those are
most appropriate.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:00:53PM -0000, Luca Invernizzi wrote:
> It might be a little bit confusing, but it would be quite handy too.
> It would even be quite trivial to implement.
> The too-many-tasks problem is not completely solved with this
> approach though, and I don't see an easy solution to that.
>
> My long term goal, when we implement searches and saved searches (or
> "views", in SQL terms), was to show one of those in the applet.
Yeah we've had some discussions on the list regarding prioritization sorting/ prioritizing systems
schemes. My guess is as new filtering/
become available, the indicator can hook into whichever of those are
most appropriate.