On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 17:27, Kenneth Crocker wrote: > Barry, > > Not to say 3.6.0 is perfect, but we like the current design as far as > merged tickets. If we have merged the two (using your example of #100 > and #200), then #100 really should never be looked at anyway, other than > what was originally appended to #200. We really don't want anyone > looking at #100 anymore, ever. It is old, has been merged into another > ticket and, therefore, is not relevent to any further research or > discussion among anyone in our organization and we never want it > referred to either. We want everyone to refer to the ticket that is > active and being worked on. We feel that is consistent with the > decision to merge them in the first place. Anything else could get > confusing, like one person referring to #100 while another is referring > to #200 in an E_mail conversation. It opens the door to miscommunication > and communication is hard enough without opening the door to confusion. > But hey, that's just our opinion and how we like it. Everyone has there > preferences.
So what is the appropriate response for someone who has gotten an email with the original number and wants to follow up but someone else has merged it? How does that person referring to #100 catch up? Merging it usually doesn't make the problem go away. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com We're hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical: http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html
