+1 for simple approach with focus to internal development --- Jiri Navratil
18. 11. 2011 v 3:44, Steve Bennett <ste...@workware.net.au>: > I agree. One of the strengths of the fossil ticketing system is it's > integration with the scm history, which is not what you would not want for a > customer-facing ticketing systems. I suggest using one of the other support > management systems for that and keep fossil for internal, development use. > > Cheers, > > Steve > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:41:23 -0500, Tomek Kott wrote: > >> If we have granular permissions for tickets, then we should probably also >> have it for the wiki (view attachments, view history), we should also >> separate attach and delete for wiki and tickets, and maybe even throw in >> permissions related to the timeline and files (such as view newest view >> hitsory, view patch, view diff) and maybe even download zip instead of tar >> file. Don't forget about tags and even open and closed names. You could EVEN >> create permissions for each artifact! That would just be easier, because you >> wouldn't need to worry about the type. >> >> OR >> >> We could realize that to do this properly would require a good CMS, which >> fossil is not, and keep it simple. >> >> As you can imagine, my vote's for the latter. >> >> Tomek >>
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
