bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
Date Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:03:46 GMT
For me, one question would be whether we need two states to indicate accepted and in progress
work but I suppose we can revise this again later. So, unless there are objections, I will
attempt to set this to be the new workflow later.

Incidentally, I think it might be good to look at a plugin in this area for adding the potential
for actions that should result in assignment to a previous owner. It feels like this is lacking
from the standard workflow abilities for the "provide info" actions in particular. I think
we can live without it for now though.


Gary Martin <> wrote:

>I've been looking at issues around this for a while so it is natural to
>try to adjust the workflow for I am not 
>suggesting that this is a workflow that we want for others necessarily;
>this is strictly for our needs. I'm trying to get something that is not
>too complicated but adds a few features we might want.
>     Gary
>On 30/10/12 18:20, Apache Bloodhound wrote:
>> #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
>> ------------------------+--------------------
>>    Reporter:  gjm        |      Owner:  nobody
>>        Type:  task       |     Status:  new
>>    Priority:  major      |  Milestone:
>>   Component:  siteadmin  |    Version:
>> Resolution:             |   Keywords:
>> ------------------------+--------------------
>> Comment (by gjm):
>>   I've been looking into various issues around workflow. One thing
>that the
>>   workflow.png opensource workflow] is missing for us is capturing
>>   of review/testing.
>>   I am not entirely sure that we need anything specific for testing
>so I
>>   suggest that we just have a generic review step that is re-entrant
>in case
>>   anyone wants to record specific testing to be done by another user.
>>   I am not proposing that there should be anything to force the
>ticket to go
>>   through these steps - it is more so that the ticket can be in an
>>   appropriate state for others to pick up on.
>>   So, the rules I am suggesting at the moment are in the
>>   attachment:new_workflow.ini which should look something like this
>as a
>>   graph:
>>   [[Image(opensource workflow with review.png)]]
>>   The graph misses a few features like where there is change of
>>   which I have added to the changes to the infoneeded and review
>states for
>>   the moment.
>> -- Ticket URL: 
>> <> Apache 
>> Bloodhound <> The Apache 
>> Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker

View raw message