incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreim...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: ticket associated with multiple versions (Was: Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #234: Quick Ticket: link to /newticket, description and priority)
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:30 GMT

On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:35, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:

> I had considered that but you would probably have to list out tasks within a ticket to
cover per task workflow, wouldn't you?

I don't believe there should be a per task workflow. It should be a ticket if it's big enough
to need a workflow.

> This is why I was thinking of making use of structure around tickets for relationships
that we are going to support anyway.
> 
> Also, are we expecting that users might sometimes create tickets separately that should
be joined by a multi version relationship? Would you pull them into a single ticket and mark
the others as invalid?

That should be entirely up to the user.

> 
> Can we envisage a way of having a ticket like interface to summarise a set of related
tickets?

We have a few of these already: Products, Versions, Milestones. They are like tickets in some
ways, but their main purpose is to group tickets. We could introduce kilometre-stones for
a smaller measureāø®

- Joe

> 
> Perhaps we can't.. perhaps it is too difficult.. but having the ability to model relationships
suggests this kind of view to me anyway.
> 
> Cheers,
>    Gary
> 
> Joe Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Maybe this can be solved by having a smaller entity than a ticket?
>> After all tickets have a lot of properties and are
>> distinct/disconnected in the UI - for good reason, because they usually
>> represent distinct issues.
>> 
>> What if a Ticket could have a set of checkboxes within it? These
>> wouldn't need any properties themselves, they could just list:
>> 
>> [   ] Minor Task 1
>> [   ] Minor Task 2
>> [   ] Minor Task 3
>> 
>> No matter the status of these the ticket could be closed, reopened,
>> etc. They shouldn't add restrictions, just record small tasks that
>> users otherwise would track outside Bloodhound.
>> 
>> Pivotal Tracker and Trello use these to great effect for example.
>> 
>> I expect this to be controversial, in fact I'm sitting on the
>> proverbial sense myself.
>> 
>> - Joe

> 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message