-------- 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