On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Mark Finkle wrote: > > > 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". >
Providing some idea of what's happening is definitely important (what datatypes are synced and what the value prop is). It's a separate question whether control over which datatypes will be synced qualifies as MVP, and it's not clear from this discussion we have consensus on what that actually means. Deb has suggested that means "device detach" for that datatype, while others suggest it means "deletion of server data". -chris > _______________________________________________ > Sync-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
_______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
