On Saturday 17 May 2008 04:39:24 pm osimons wrote: > On May 17, 8:25 pm, Eli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > > > I'm going through my tickets trying to get things done for 0.11. One of > > them is #5441, and I'm wondering what milestone we want to do this one > > for. It is currently targetted to 0.11.1. > > > > Basically, TicketModule.get_timeline_events() didn't get updated to > > reflect the configurable workflow. There are a number issues here: > > 1) only new, reopened, and closed statuses are recognized, and they are > > mapped to a past-tense verb (created, reopened, closed) > > 2) it uses a psuedo-status value of 'edit' (which gets mapped to > > 'updated') to indicate non-status-changing changes to the ticket; but a > > workflow can be configured with a real 'edit' status. Hilarity may > > ensue. > > 3) a workflow can be configured to move a ticket back to the 'new' > > status; and it will show up in the timeline as 'created'. > > 4) for other status values, it just says 'status changed' > > > > The above leads me to think that it needs to be fixed in 0.11-stable. My > > question is, do we want this fixed for 0.11, or for 0.11.1? > > Actually, the problem reaches even further. As far as I can tell, and > remember from earlier workflow discussions, only 'new' and 'closed' > are actually system-supported states (both kinds of 'new'...). > Everything else is configured by workflow (including 'reopened'). It > may not exist, or it may exist but have a different contextual > importance from our default meaning. So, it really does not belong in > that list....
Correct. Of course, if we remove it without replacing the functionality, those who stick with the "original" workflow will see the change as a regression. > I've just briefly tried it out, and concluded that it does need fixing > somehow - and that as you say, we don't have any good past-tense words > for individual statuses. Reading this past-tense from config will lead > to a painful localized message with i18n now in trunk... We're going to have that pain regardless, just for the status names themselves. > Anyway, it has worked like this for a long time (also predating > workflow), so I don't think it is critical for 0.11. Nice if it gets > done of course, but no problem for a 0.11 release. 0.11.1 milestone is > fine by me. Thanks, Eli ------------------. "If it ain't broke now, Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram [EMAIL PROTECTED] `------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
