-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Research: evaluate suitability of building on top of collective.task #3
Comments
Thanks, any other add-ons to research? Or is
But thought I'd ask. |
@aclark4life only looking seriously at stuff that is Dexterity-based (none of the above), but might make sense to spend a bit of time reviewing them for basic ideas (along with Products.Poi and your own previous task/project add-ons)? |
Got it, thanks |
@aclark4life some random notes:
|
@seanupton Re: multi-principal, do groups count i.e. one or more users who are members of a group. Or do you want "true" multi-principal support e.g. one or more users, one or more groups? |
Opened collective/collective.task#2 |
@aclark4life wondering about maybe just supporting singular assignment with the possibility of grafting on a "Cc" field at later date. The other concern re: c.task was mostly that due date was date, not datetime (my sense is that this would be easier to work around). |
Punt |
Research (unreleased) collective.task package as a possible framework to extend or build on top of. We need to assess:
We likely want to install this in a Plone 4.3 site for testing, evaluation. There should be some discussion of pros/cons of using this. We can always refactor what we are doing toward an aim of future collaboration if necessity dictates.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: