Perhaps we can have more categories of relationships to properly
reflect the relationships themselves.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Hmm, I think I got to the party late, but:
>
> Having worked in a tracker that had "X blocks Y"-style dependencies, I
> really liked it. We used it a lot, and it helped us remember what was
> blocking what. The complexities raised by Matthew Paul Thomas in
> comment #7 are real, but just because formal dependency relationships
> can't easily express all of those subtleties doesn't mean such
> relationships are useless. They are still a win, even if they don't
> solve everything.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Perhaps we can have more categories of relationships to properly
reflect the relationships themselves.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Hmm, I think I got to the party late, but:
>
> Having worked in a tracker that had "X blocks Y"-style dependencies, I
> really liked it. We used it a lot, and it helped us remember what was
> blocking what. The complexities raised by Matthew Paul Thomas in
> comment #7 are real, but just because formal dependency relationships
> can't easily express all of those subtleties doesn't mean such
> relationships are useless. They are still a win, even if they don't
> solve everything.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkq oDagACgkQTniv4a qX/Vl+ZQCfZsMnI VUsfyrpztKyh9bm 0v36 eMMeB/qwGC/ OT9bqf
SPsAmwT85qsrA6s
=RdrD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----