On May 1, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jon Forrest wrote:
A native mode ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote
a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed
assuming that tickets wouldn't be deleted. In these days of
massive spam, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.
On 5/7/07, Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jon Forrest wrote:
A native mode ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote
a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed
assuming that tickets wouldn't be deleted. In these days of
massive
Instead of adding rows and expanding the width of the Content field to
make it bigger, have it open in a window with the ability to adjust
it's size.
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help:
Hi Everyone,
First, thanks Jesse for soliciting input from the user community;
hopefully this input will improve the quality of the software. Second,
this message is not meant to be critical, as its goal to get the user
community more involved in the Request Tracker development process.
As
Jesse Vincent wrote:
If, for the sake of argument, Best Practical were to rewrite RT, what
would you want to see in the new product?
A native mode ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote
a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed
assuming that tickets wouldn't be
One thing I saw mentioned was Mandatory field support - we implemented a
pretty robust Mandatory field system in RT here with a separate checkbox
so that validation and Mandatory are separate. Also pushed all the code
into the core API so it works via REST, email and GUI. This has been
submitted
Would be nice to have PAM auth builtin or capabilities.
On 5/1/07, Philip Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I saw mentioned was Mandatory field support - we implemented a
pretty robust Mandatory field system in RT here with a separate checkbox
so that validation and Mandatory are
