[Opensim-users] Opensim-users Digest, Vol 17, Issue 56

[Ralf Haifisch]

That would be a great advantage at the stage we are, in respect to the
status of opensim (running almost well, plenty functions) and the change in
users we see (now requesting more content and social functions to get their
second life moved to opensim).

Maybe the thought to vote on feature requests (like JIRA) gets a second
chance.

It still leaves the option to the developer, whether they will take a
featurewish on their personal list or not - but we would visualize the
demand.


Cheers
Ralf

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:11:38 +0000
From: Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Opensim-users Digest, Vol 17, Issue 56
To: opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
Message-ID: <498350EA.5080609 at googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Mo Hax wrote:
>     Just to note, missing features from the Linden Labs Second Life
>     viewer (e.g.
>     groups support), are considered feature
>     requests rather than bugs - these shouldn't go in the mantis.
> 
> 
> Where do feature requests get tracked then? I submitted some missing 
> llGetAnimation() states as a Mantis but you have me thinking maybe those 
> are features rather than OSSL/LSL bugs.

In this particular case I would regard missing llGetAnimation() states as a
bug (since some of the method is 
implemented) rather than a feature.

I think the consensus was to track features as requests on the mailing list.
However, this really may have been geared 
towards big features (e.g. anonymous avatars) rather than small ones (e.g.
implementation of some missing ll function).

Thinking about it, I would err to continuing to place small features on the
Mantis since they'll just get lost on the 
lists.  If people disagree then hopefully we can get to some new consensus.

-- 
justincc
Justin Clark-Casey
http://justincc.wordpress.com