For me, one question would be whether we need two states to indicate accepted
and in progress work but I suppose we can revise this again later. So, unless
there are objections, I will attempt to set this to be the new workflow later.
Incidentally, I think it might be good to look at a plugin in this area for
adding the potential for actions that should result in assignment to a previous
owner. It feels like this is lacking from the standard workflow abilities for
the "provide info" actions in particular. I think we can live without it for
now though.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've been looking at issues around this for a while so it is natural to
>
>try to adjust the workflow for issues.apache.org/bloodhound. I am not
>suggesting that this is a workflow that we want for others necessarily;
>
>this is strictly for our needs. I'm trying to get something that is not
>
>too complicated but adds a few features we might want.
>
>Cheers,
> Gary
>
>On 30/10/12 18:20, Apache Bloodhound wrote:
>> #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
>> ------------------------+--------------------
>> Reporter: gjm | Owner: nobody
>> Type: task | Status: new
>> Priority: major | Milestone:
>> Component: siteadmin | Version:
>> Resolution: | Keywords:
>> ------------------------+--------------------
>>
>> Comment (by gjm):
>>
>> I've been looking into various issues around workflow. One thing
>that the
>>
>[https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/attachment/ticket/194/opensource-
>> workflow.png opensource workflow] is missing for us is capturing
>aspects
>> of review/testing.
>>
>> I am not entirely sure that we need anything specific for testing
>so I
>> suggest that we just have a generic review step that is re-entrant
>in case
>> anyone wants to record specific testing to be done by another user.
>Also,
>> I am not proposing that there should be anything to force the
>ticket to go
>> through these steps - it is more so that the ticket can be in an
>> appropriate state for others to pick up on.
>>
>> So, the rules I am suggesting at the moment are in the
>> attachment:new_workflow.ini which should look something like this
>as a
>> graph:
>> [[Image(opensource workflow with review.png)]]
>>
>> The graph misses a few features like where there is change of
>ownership
>> which I have added to the changes to the infoneeded and review
>states for
>> the moment.
>>
>> -- Ticket URL:
>> <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:13> Apache
>> Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/> The Apache
>> Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
