That's fine, I think your proposed workflow is enough of an improvement that we should go for it. We can revise/iterate/pivot later.
Cheers, Joe On 31 October 2012 01:03, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > For me, one question would be whether we need two states to indicate > accepted and in progress work but I suppose we can revise this again later. > So, unless there are objections, I will attempt to set this to be the new > workflow later. > > Incidentally, I think it might be good to look at a plugin in this area > for adding the potential for actions that should result in assignment to a > previous owner. It feels like this is lacking from the standard workflow > abilities for the "provide info" actions in particular. I think we can live > without it for now though. > > Cheers, > Gary > > Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I've been looking at issues around this for a while so it is natural to > > > >try to adjust the workflow for issues.apache.org/bloodhound. I am not > >suggesting that this is a workflow that we want for others necessarily; > > > >this is strictly for our needs. I'm trying to get something that is not > > > >too complicated but adds a few features we might want. > > > >Cheers, > > Gary > > > >On 30/10/12 18:20, Apache Bloodhound wrote: > >> #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site > >> ------------------------+-------------------- > >> Reporter: gjm | Owner: nobody > >> Type: task | Status: new > >> Priority: major | Milestone: > >> Component: siteadmin | Version: > >> Resolution: | Keywords: > >> ------------------------+-------------------- > >> > >> Comment (by gjm): > >> > >> I've been looking into various issues around workflow. One thing > >that the > >> > >[https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/attachment/ticket/194/opensource- > >> workflow.png opensource workflow] is missing for us is capturing > >aspects > >> of review/testing. > >> > >> I am not entirely sure that we need anything specific for testing > >so I > >> suggest that we just have a generic review step that is re-entrant > >in case > >> anyone wants to record specific testing to be done by another user. > >Also, > >> I am not proposing that there should be anything to force the > >ticket to go > >> through these steps - it is more so that the ticket can be in an > >> appropriate state for others to pick up on. > >> > >> So, the rules I am suggesting at the moment are in the > >> attachment:new_workflow.ini which should look something like this > >as a > >> graph: > >> [[Image(opensource workflow with review.png)]] > >> > >> The graph misses a few features like where there is change of > >ownership > >> which I have added to the changes to the infoneeded and review > >states for > >> the moment. > >> > >> -- Ticket URL: > >> <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:13> Apache > >> Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/> The Apache > >> Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker > > -- Joe Dreimann UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/> * * *Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
