On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote: > On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just noticed this ticket: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/16 >> >> Its status was "assigned" but it had no owner, as Joe removed himself a >> while ago. Just now I modified it and selected "unassign", and its >> status is now "new", however, it still has no owner, even though I'd >> expect the owner to be "nobody". >> >> Both states seem inconsistent to me. Is this lack of proper attribute >> dependency tracking an inherent bug in Trac, or did we introduce it >> somehow, perhaps with the UI changes? >> > I can replicate something very similar using Edgewall's Trac 1.0 demo, see > this ticket I created today: > http://trac.edgewall.org/demo-1.0/ticket/1606 > > "nobody" is treated like any other user in Trac, someone has to type the > name into the Owner field. An empty string or <null> are not equal to > "nobody" because it has no meaning, and like you say there is > no dependency tracking.
Right. So the question is, do we add such dependency tracking on our todo list (post-1.0 of course)? I think it would make sense to do that. By implication, "nobody" would be treated specially; on the other hand, it seems that a null owner would be more appropriate, as long as one can't have a ticket assigned to null. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
