[haiku-development] Re: Altering Trac's ticket workflow

  • From: "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:57:27 +0100

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:40:07 +0100
> Von: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 2009/11/25 Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > scott mc <scottmc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Over at HaikuPorts we are using the 0.11 workflow but I don't 
> > > > really
> > >> see the "accepted" being used any differently than just being the
> > >> "owner".  I'd rather just have the nobody default so that devs can
> > >> look through the "nobody" or open tickets and take ownership of 
> > > > the
> > >> ones they think they can fix.  At haikuports we have a blank owner
> > >> option.
> > >> Perhaps change "nobody" to "open" or "blank" or just leave as is.
> > > I also prefer the current notion of "accepted" where you can 
> > > actually
> > > be sure the developer is actively working on it, while you can 
> > > pretty
> > > much fix any other ticket no matter which owner it has.
> > So you are in favor of the new workflow scheme?
> 
> No, this is how it is right now.
> The only difference (AFAIU) is that only the developer himself can 
> accept tickets right now, while with the new workflow, other people can 
> let the developer accept a ticket without any action on his part. If I 
> understand that correctly, wouldn't like that, as it actually blurs the 
> message of the otherwise clear "accepted" status.

No, as Niels wrote "accepted" is a new state. The old workflow is:

"new" -> (developer clicks "accept") -> "assigned" -> (developer "closes") -> 
"closed"

The new one would be:

"new" -> (developer clicks "accept #1") -> "accepted" -> (developer clicks 
"accept #2") -> "assigned" -> (developer "closes") -> "closed"

The naming is somewhat confusing, particularly because currently "accept" 
changes the ticket status to "assigned". Introducing an "accepted" state which 
requires another "accept" makes it even weirder. I suppose something could be 
done about the naming?

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: