Re: [Chandler-dev] Shared triage status for rearchitecture

Hi Jeffrey,

I wonder if a variant of your original proposal might not make more  
sense? (I don't think it's sustainable for use to assume that the web  
UI will need to keep pace with feature work on the desktop.  
Especially if the project continues to move towards the model where  
the web UI is really a collection pluggable widgets that can appear  
in a number of different contexts.)

Manual beats auto makes sense to me.

Local auto beats remote auto...I'm not sure this makes sense to me.  
What if I am sharing triage status with you, but not alarms. I have  
an alarm go off 15 minutes before a meeting, which moves the event to  
NOW. You have an alarm that goes off 5 minutes before the meeting,  
which again moves the event to the top of NOW. Should we just let the  
"latest" auto-triage win?

Remote manual beats local manual...Isn't this just a legitimate  
conflict? You DONE an item, and I think there's more to do, so I  
LATER it.

Mimi

On Sep 19, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:

> When syncing, I think triage status conflicts should be automatically
> resolved with the following heuristic:
>    manual beats auto
>    local auto beats remote auto
>    remote manual beats local manual

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev