I'd be ok with either one of these options:
1) Don't add "blocked". Treat "postponed" as a superset of "blocked".
So, something can either be "postponed" because another issue needs to
be resolved first, or it can be postponed for other reasons, like the
person who feels responsible for the issue wishes to convey that they're
putting it off their radar for a while, until they feel like picking it
up again some day. Although these are very different concepts, I don't
think it's so bad to bundle them into a single status as we do now. But,
if "postponed" includes "this issue is very much alive, but is stuck
until another issue is resolved", then we must change the "79 critical
issues (D7)" link in the "Contributor links" block to include
"postponed". Otherwise, we have the wrong count and lose awareness of
issues that still must be solved.
2) Add "blocked" and include those, but not "postponed" issues in the
count of critical issues remaining.
My preference is for the second, but I think the first is acceptable.
What I think is a problem right now is that we have some critical issues
marked as "postponed" thinking that's the correct status for blocked,
but those issues not showing up in that link that people are
increasingly paying attention to.
Alex.
PS: Not sure if this conversation should move to an issue. Perhaps it
should if it starts getting more responses, but at least for now, I see
some value in continuing it on this email list.
Derek Wright wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 3:09 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote:
I think a blocked issue status would be helpful,
Perhaps, although I'm concerned about the overwhelming number of choices we
already have and ask users to navigate and understand. There have been
multiple bikeshed-of-doom threads about the whole question of issue status
names and meanings, for example:
"Reorganise project issue statuses"
http://drupal.org/node/171350
especially if the ability to build block relationships was available. This
would allow for the display of all blocking and blocked by issues to be listed
for each issue.
Right. This would be slick, but would require some new plumbing:
"relationships between issues integrated with the status field"
http://drupal.org/node/44162
http://groups.drupal.org/node/555
Other related topics:
"Provide a mechanism for issue meta discussions"
http://drupal.org/node/569552
"Enable CCK and node_reference"
http://drupal.org/node/651484
Enjoy,
-Derek (dww)
