incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Dreimann <joachim.dreim...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Bug in ticket workflow?
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:09:50 GMT

On 25 Mar 2013, at 18:50, "Matevž Bradač" <matevz@digiverse.si> wrote:

> 
> On 25. Mar, 2013, at 16:13, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> 
>> On 25 March 2013 12:40, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
>>>> On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I just noticed this ticket:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/16
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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:
>>>> http://trac.edgewall.org/demo-1.0/ticket/1606
>>>> 
>>>> "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 agree that using null is the right approach.
> 
> On another note, Trac seems to allow assigning tickets to non-existant users,
> without any warning. Should we at least warn the users of a potential mistake,
> or perhaps even prevent it (though this might be a bit extreme)?

I think we should prevent it, but first two other features need to be implemented to make
it palpable.

1. Allow users to assign ownership to a group
2. Make it easy to invite new users

Point 2 could be achieved by allowing users to put email addresses in the Owner field. When
submitted an email would be sent to that address explaining how to create an account and what
to do next.

- Joe


> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<http://www.wandisco.com/>
>> 
>> @jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann>
> 
> 
> --
> matevz
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message