On 25 March 2013 12:40, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I agree that using null is the right approach. -- Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<http://www.wandisco.com/> @jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann>
