Dependencies on the same level

[AlessioGr]

The outcome Working E-Mail service connected to editor & db should be dependent on Fully functional editor and database, meaning I cannot start working on it, if the dependent outcome is finished. How would I be able to do that?

I know I could make Working E-Mail service connected to editor & db a parent of Fully functional editor and database. But the problem is, that Working E-Mail service connected to editor & db cannot have any tasks of its own if I do it like that. And I also cannot add outcomes for the E-mail outcome to add tasks to, as those would also be on the same level of Fully functional editor and database, which is bad as they are dependent on it

[pegahvaezi]

Hi! Thanks for providing feedback. The quest for expressing sequential dependency on map view actually already exists on our acorn project management map.

For now ourselves are expressing the sequencing between the siblings by re-ordering them from left to right (if you reconnect an existing child to the same parent, the child outcome goes to the far right side of all its siblings). So the far left sibling is the first outcome to be achieved then moving to its right outcome and so on. Hope this trick is helpful while we are working on a design solution for this.

[AlessioGr]

hey just wondering - is your acorn map public by any chance? Would love to track that feature's progress as it's the only thing still preventing me from actually using acorn (and I love its idea way more than other pm tools).

The idea with ordering them from left to right kinda works I guess, though I'm no fan of it as I can only really model very simple dependencies like that. Though I need to model stuff like child A is independent, child B is dependent on child C and D. C dependent on only E. F dependent on G etc.

[zippy]

The current problem with this is that there is no obvious way to change the order of siblings. The work-around that I found is that you can drag from the top of outcome and "reconnect" it to its parent, and then that moves outcome all the way to the right.

It would be great if you could just grab a handlebar and drag the outcome to the right or left and have the tree reorganize as you drag.

[Connoropolous]

"hey just wondering - is your acorn map public by any chance? " We could selectively share it with individuals like you, on request!

Re. roadmap, this feature has been bumped to be high priority so that should mean completion this month (of January)

[Connoropolous]

@zippy " grab a handlebar" any thoughts on where that handle bar would be?

[Connoropolous]

Recapping this, it seems like @AlessioGr doesn't just want re-ordering, so I'm going to break re-ordering out into its own issue

[Connoropolous]

Okay, that's now issue #239

[maackle]

This sounds like a different kind of relationship.

Currently, the arrows {A} -> B currently mean "when all outcomes in {A} are achieved, then B is achieved", and B is always of Big (not Small) scope (I forget the official term now).

This new kind of arrow seems to mean "when all outcomes in {A} are achieved, then B is unlocked / work on B can begin", and B must always be Small.

So, arrows pointing to Bigs mean something fundamentally different (and perhaps could look different in the Map (dotted line?) and imply different things in other views) than arrows pointing to Smalls. I could see this new arrow being quite useful for organizing work especially among many collaborators. But I think it would be confusing to use the same arrow for both situations.