On 2009-11-26 at 12:08:06 [+0100], Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2009-11-26 at 12:00:32 [+0100], PulkoMandy <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > "new" -> (developer clicks "accept #1") -> "accepted" -> (developer > > > clicks "accept #2") -> "assigned" -> (developer "closes") -> "closed" > > > > I see it the reverse way : > > The sorter guy assigns the ticket to a dev, which either accept it or > > reassign it to someone else. It makes more sense to me... > > Independently of whatever may make most sense, AFAIU the workflow Niels > proposed, the "sorter guy" would only change the ticket ownership to a > developer. The ticket would still be "new" and then what I wrote above > would happen. Without having re-read what Niels wrote, I understood it as Adrien just wrote. I.e. New -> Assigned -> Accepted -> ... Makes sense. Right now, we have assigned == accepted, then we would have assigned != accepted. But I am not saying we need the newer workflow, I am just saying it is indeed a little different/more clear, but of course it introduces one more step. I would be fine with keeping what we have. IMHO, getting rid of the "nobody" account is just pretending we are more professional/company-like than we can actually be. Having your ticket assigned to "nobody" may be disappointing, but so is having it assigned and never fixed anyway. At least what we have now is more truthfully. Best regards, -Stephan