During reading your discussion idea born in my head.
It will be very cool to draw history of state changes as graph or state
diagram.

2007/5/7, Christian Boos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Jonas Borgström wrote:
> > Eli Carter wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday 30 April 2007, Alec Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >>> Err, in case this wasn't clear, I'm suggesting we delay the merge
> >>> until more people have reviewed it.
> >>>
> >>> On 5/1/07, Alec Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/1/07, Christian Boos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Eli has put the WorkFlow branch in a good shape, and it has been
> quite
> >>>>> usable for a while now. I've taken a look, tested it and all seems
> well
> >>>>> for me for shifting the work on trunk where it could gain some wider
> >>>>> exposure. So I'd like to call a vote for the merge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ideal situation would be to get a few +1 besides mine and Eli's,
> >>>>> till tomorrow afternoon, as it's the 1st of May and I'll have some
> time
> >>>>> to work on the merge together with Eli. But otherwise, it's not a
> big
> >>>>> deal, as I've got plenty of other areas to hack on ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is not picking on Eli at all, but can we get more review before
> >>>> doing major merges? I'd personally like to see at least one of
> cmlenz,
> >>>> jborg or mgood comment on major merges *before* they go in. The more
> >>>> people that look at the code the better it will be. Different minds
> >>>> pick up different issues.
> >>>>
> >> Agreed.  Review is definitely welcome.  The problem is it seems to
> require a
> >> threat of merging before it happens. :(
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I've been looking at the code now and this branch seems to be in pretty
> > good shape. I've just found some minor code formatting issues but
> > nothing that can't be addressed in trunk later.
> >
> > So +1 from me.
> >
>
> One thing I'm not sure anymore about is the
> apply_ticket_side_effects(req, ticket, action) part.
> I'd prefer to have the "actions" focused on the workflow part, and the
> operations limited to field changes.
> For example, there's #4686 (Ticket duplication using Trac): I don't see
> this being done using an "action" for example, but rather triggered by a
> "Clone" button somewhere in the yellow box. Likewise for ticket delete,
> I prefer the way it is done with the current TicketDelete plugin. This
> is not to say that we shouldn't eventually come up with an interface and
> common UI for these kind of things, but rather that the workflow
> interface and UI shouldn't be "abused" (TM) for this.
>
> In a related way, I feel that we should be able to do better on the
> self-explaining quality of the workflow transitions.
> - Tooltips explaining what an action will do (I think everybody already
> agrees on this one, eli wants to postpone this to after trunk integration)
> - show only the actions that can actually be performed by the user;
> currently all are shown and selecting one which is not permitted results
> in an error
> - show where we stand in the workflow; ideally, that would be a summary
> of the transitions already taken, and what's possible to do next:
>
>
> ,-- Workflow: -----------------------------------
> |
> |  new -> needinfo_new -> infoprovided_new -> assigned -> accepted ->
> *started*
> |
> |  action:
> |    (o) leave as started
> |    (  ) close as ...           -> closed
> |    (  ) reassign _____    -> assigned
> |    (  ) info needed         -> needinfo
> |    ...
>
> Instead of things like "needinfo_new" and "infoprovided_new", the title
> of the state should be provided (once we have them).
>
> Of course, all those are refinements that will be better done on trunk,
> now.
>
> -- Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac 
Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to