incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Bug in ticket workflow?
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:40:07 GMT
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.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com


Mime
View raw message