----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Deb Richardson < [email protected] > wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > I'm not arguing that our users don't deserve this. My question is whether > > > > it's > > > > part of MVP. I.e., if our users are actually better served by not having > > > > the existing bad sync delayed until this feature is done. ISTM that if > > > > Chrome doesn't have this, that's a pretty strong argument that it's not > > > > actually minimum > > > Is adding a page where users can get more information about the feature > > going > > to require significant engineering time? I'm literally talking about a page > > of text that users can read at this point, nothing more. > > Well, it's nonzero, and I thought we were trying to define the minimum > here. Minimum that we want to ship. Yes, it's non-zero, but I think what is being suggested is that we want to provide the user with some idea of what's happening. Minimum is not "bare-bones".
_______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
