I don't know about ITIL and what is RFC in this concept :) but I want
to comment on "(-) no file attachments"
Later RT versions have support for binding transactions to any objects
in RT. You can see it in action via WebUI:
RT->Configuration->Groups-><select group>->History.
Attachments are sticked to transactions, consequently you can add
attachments to any objects. :) Sure, you should code a little to do
that.
On 9/29/06, Tim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate
given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The
question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change
(RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.
My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd
and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I'm
prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I
see them.
RFCs in Asset Tracker
=============
(+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept
(+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in
ITIL-speak)
(-) no scrip support
(-) no support for longer form text data
(-) no file attachments
RFCs as tickets
=========
(+) scrip support
(+) file attachments
(+) new RFC creation via email or other API
(-) possible conceptual discontinuity between "tickets" and RFC
I'd appreciate any feedback from anyone else who's considered using RT
this way.
-Tim
--
Best regards, Ruslan.
_______________________________________________
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
