gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

[Bryce Harrington <bryce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:48:59PM -0400, Paul Natsuo Kishimoto wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 01:32 +0200, Luca Invernizzi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Paul Natsuo Kishimoto
> > <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I just dumped my follow-up analysis of the GTG data model on l.g.o:
> > >
> > >              http://live.gnome.org/gtg/DataModel/Analysis
> > >
> > > For those who didn't catch it, this follows on the comparison with other
> > > tools & models, which you can also find from:
> > >
> > >                  http://live.gnome.org/gtg/DataModel

This is very well thought out and quite informative.

I agree the iCalendar scheme for recurrence sounds overly ornate.  I
definitely think recurrence is something we want to see supported in
gtg, but I agree with the assessment that modeling it after the
iCalendar scheme would not be a clear win.


Regarding the duration field, if we support that in gtg I was thinking
we should also have a "default duration" that is assumed when not
otherwise specified.  All of us probably have different ideas of how
long a "task" is, but we're probably mostly consistent across our own
tasks, so this would save having to specify durations on most tasks.

It's also interesting to think that, knowing the duration per task, and
number of tasks, you could quite directly figure out when you have too
many tasks scheduled on a given day.  Mmm, that could be handy...

Bryce