Return-Path: 
 <bloodhound-dev-return-1092-apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8E06DF4D
	for <apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Thu,  8 Nov 2012 22:04:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 30232 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2012 22:04:26 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30210 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2012 22:04:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bloodhound-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <bloodhound-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30201 invoked by uid 99); 8 Nov 2012 22:04:26 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:04:26 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of olemis@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.212.47] (HELO mail-vb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.212.47)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:04:20 +0000
Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ez10so3234470vbb.6
        for <bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:04:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=+eFqa0Fo7n++oMdPMu58XOIPVd/Y4LkwElQLNrW7X5U=;
        b=YWlB5AxDe5QlEWjzvYQ/HbeQXFIVoHqHojNRv9n2bf3tl2vgWnrqIj6K6eSsqCrEW8
         9fbraJivF7BZojpRElTCSgQJevXW+E9OSR5BaFJffb0KPyPn3suALGxrvRnyF0tB+hgK
         kI3nLGr13uIruf9vkhVSJEfq87ZTyAaef+wW6BnfSccNE2o4DQQSJvAOVM3x38SEoClh
         0GKnr+G8szodE4p08n0HziK9yASkmXj+S4YgOfbpoGuiobt2EXMJm2R/A0Om5fby65Kc
         QDE16//utP6eGn36HGirBWn5fMBzK9ioSa+ffhV/MkFdfnSk9StZc9Fr2Lt53vhGnPjD
         Vfrw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.8.73 with SMTP id g9mr8586584vcg.28.1352412240002; Thu, 08
 Nov 2012 14:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.156.71 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:03:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKoya92BZ3TFfuppE0nHSTWcCo9zxD8SFQBj2JjmEOnYNuU9Lg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <052.915f20130ba69063f69ac0b8589be5f4@incubator.apache.org>
	<067.edf3fec198a6f656ecc392c96729cbe8@incubator.apache.org>
	<CAKoya92BZ3TFfuppE0nHSTWcCo9zxD8SFQBj2JjmEOnYNuU9Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:03:59 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAGMZAuM9rUqQrBcdn+Q_SPCohQzy6bjO5eik-WC+wnmyda_qSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
From: Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com>
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 11/8/12, Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 06:34, Apache Bloodhound <
> bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>>  Recently I noticed some weird transitions while using new workflow .
>>  Sequence was
>>
>>   1. #195 put into needsinfo status owner => jdreimann
>>   2. #195 put into assigned status owner => <empty>
>>      (even if input box = olemis)
>>   3. #195 put into assigned status owner => olemis
>>      (review action not available :'( ... )
>>   4. #195 put into review status owner => jdreimann
>>
>
> Your suggestion seems reasonable to me, what stops this from working that
> way currently?
>

AFAICS in step (2) username in the input box is ignored and ticket
owner field is set to an empty string once action is applied . Hence
the need for redundant step (3) above .

Besides ... I wonder ... is review action available for ticket owner only ?

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article: