gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

[meg ford <meg387@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Hmm, so we're doing etymology too now? ;-)

Next up is Deconstruction of subtasks a la Derrida :)
>
> Regarding subtasks. How we define subtask has been described by ploum
> in one of his mail, posted about 2 weeks ago on gtg-contributors [1]:
>
> "In essence, a subtask B of A is a task that you consider as a
> prerequisite before working on A."
>
> So, it's really important for us that a subtask must considered as a
> prerequisite of its parent task. It thus corresponds to a "break down"
> of the parent task in more detail (the aim being to refine a parent
> task in subtasks until those can be performed directly), and not an
> extension.
>
> Now, the trouble here comes from the fact that this concept is not
> clearly explained or suggested in GTG. Which leads to what ploum
> defined as "abuse" (cf. [1]). IMHO, "abuse" term is a bit judgmental,
> but the main point is: users don't seem to understand this concept as
> us, which leads to misunderstanding with the behaviour of other
> functionalities.
>
> This is the case with the workview, which is often misunderstood.
> Indeed, if subtasks are prerequisite tasks for their parent task, you
> can't, by definition, perform the parent task before achieving all its
> subtasks (they're exclusive). This is why the workview, which only
> displays the "tasks you can actually do", hides all parent tasks (and
> why those tasks disappear when you add subtasks while in the workview
> mode).
>
> Well, this is the rationale behind all this. I think it's sound.
> However, I agree that how we implemented it now lead to confusions, so
> it should be rethought a bit.
>
> Bertrand
>
> [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/gtg-contributors/msg00769.html
>
> 2012/4/3 meg ford <meg387@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> It's from Latin, yeah. Subtasks are inherently subordinate, so
>> changing them does not change meaning/date of the main task.
>>
>> Removing today might help, but it won't solve your issue, most likely.
>> However, it's up to you :)
>>
>> Meg
>>
>> 2012/4/3 Izidor Matušov <izidor.matusov@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Am 03.04.2012 16:51, schrieb meg ford:
>>>
>>>> I said on the wiki that I think it should be evident that it is an xor
>>>> choice- either you schedule something for today, or you move it to a
>>>> different view.  These should be handles differently, not as two items
>>>> on a list of several.  Also, you may have a bug for the subtask case,
>>>> but this is the very confusing. Logically a subtask is an extension of
>>>> a task, that is just the way that the term is used. It is possible to
>>>> schedule an extension of a task to another day while needing to
>>>> perform your main task that day.
>>>>
>>>> Meg
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sorry, but I don't understand. You are right that set start date in
>>> Workview mode shouldn't have item "today" because it doesn't make sense.
>>> Would removing "today" solve the problem?
>>>
>>> When you decompose word subtask you get Latin prefix sub- and word task.
>>>
>>> sub-
>>> A prefix that means "underneath or lower" (as in subsoil), "a subordinate or
>>> secondary part of something else" (as in subphylum.), or "less than
>>> completely" (as in subtropical.)
>>>
>>> How I understand you that you say a subtask was an extension to main task
>>> and could be done after completing the main task. But it doesn't comply with
>>> definition above. (and I am confused what do you want to say).
>
>
>
> --
> Bertrand Rousseau