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: Bug in ticket workflow?
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:13:02 GMT
On 25 March 2013 12:40, Branko ─îibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:

> On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> > On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko ─îibej <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.

-- 
Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<http://www.wandisco.com/>

@jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann>

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