bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olemis Lang <>
Subject Re: Bug in ticket workflow?
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:46:53 GMT
On 3/25/13, Branko ─îibej <> wrote:
> On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
>> On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko ─îibej <> wrote:
>>> I just noticed this ticket:
>>> Its status was "assigned" but it had no owner, as Joe removed himself a
>>> while ago. Just now I modified it and selected "unassign", and its
>>> status is now "new", however, it still has no owner, even though I'd
>>> expect the owner to be "nobody".
>>> Both states seem inconsistent to me. Is this lack of proper attribute
>>> dependency tracking an inherent bug in Trac, or did we introduce it
>>> somehow, perhaps with the UI changes?
>> I can replicate something very similar using Edgewall's Trac 1.0 demo,
>> see
>> this ticket I created today:
>> "nobody" is treated like any other user in Trac, someone has to type the
>> name into the Owner field. An empty string or <null> are not equal to
>> "nobody" because it has no meaning, and like you say there is
>> no dependency tracking.
> Right. So the question is, do we add such dependency tracking on our
> todo list (post-1.0 of course)? I think it would make sense to do that.
> By implication, "nobody" would be treated specially; on the other hand,
> it seems that a null owner would be more appropriate, as long as one
> can't have a ticket assigned to null.

I just want to add that I recall I've seen before in code a note about this .

... so maybe this is something related to components and their owners
. Notice that the issue tracker tries to find the best match to assign
an owner since the beginning .



View raw message