On 3/25/13, 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 just want to add that I recall I've seen before in code a note about this . http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/trunk/trac/ticket/model.py?marks=240-253#L240 ... so maybe this is something related to components and their owners . Notice that the issue tracker tries to find the best match to assign an owner since the beginning . -- Regards, Olemis.
