> > On Nov 12, 3:02 pm, Endre Bakka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > on a ticket basis it would be overkill i guess. but set the preference
> >> I strongly disagree - after all, that is what the cc field is used for: > >> notification on a ticket-to-ticket basis. But instead of having to add > >> your name to a cc list, you check off a checkbox. That's actually something frequently requested at work (as currently removing yourself from the cc list means you get added to the "people who've changed this ticket" list and continue to get the email anyway). So being able to reliably set notification on a per-ticket basis would be great. :-) On Friday 16 November 2007, Endre Bakka wrote: > > oh, of course you are right. if there is a wise possibility to add > > somebody else too it would be perfect. we use the owner to define > > "main responsible", and the cc to define "these people should help" - > > but this is done by a planning person. > You're right, we do need an elegant way of adding and removing others as > well. This could be done by (ab)using the cc field. A user can change his > own notification on a ticket through using the checkboxes, while other > users that are notified (but not owner or reporter), is shown in the cc > field. > I guess in your particular case, a co-owner field could be interesting > (but maybe overkill) as well? Also something we've had requested - multiple owners for the same ticket (so that the ticket shows up in reports that are restricted by $USER). Abusing the cc field doesn't give us that part. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
