Agreed, I have updated the ticket. On 27 March 2013 07:45, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27.03.2013 07:40, Peter Koželj wrote: > > I was thinking about that but each one alone does not warrant 2 months > > coding effort. > > I meant split into two goals within one GSoC project. > > The thing is, I suspect that the WYSIWYG workflow editor might be just a > bit too much for two months. So, it needs some infrastructure -- I > expect the internal API will be table-based in any case -- and exposing > that in the UI should be close to trivial, so that the project would > have something to show relatively early. > > -- Brane > > > On 27 March 2013 07:30, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 27.03.2013 07:19, Peter Koželj wrote: > >>> I hope I am not to late, I have added > >>> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/490 to the list. > >>> What do you think? > >> Not bad, but I'd split it in two; the first step (required) would be a > >> table-based workflow editor, modelled after Redmine's, for example. The > >> second step (optional) would be the WSYWIG thing. > >> > >> -- Brane > >> > >> -- > >> Branko Čibej > >> Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com > >> > >> > > > -- > Branko Čibej > Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com > >
