On 7. Jun, 2013, at 20:16, Gary Martin wrote: > On 06/06/13 14:51, Joachim Dreimann wrote: >> If our current approach of a default product and redirections in order to >> not expose the product complexity to users when they first get set up >> causes too many issues, we should consider a different approach: >> >> Simply asking users to set up their first product when they first launch >> Bloodhound. >> >> Then everything is always in products from the start, without the default >> product weirdness. >> >> - Joe > > The default product is certainly a bit weird anyway, particularly when it is > referenced with '@'. > > Actually, is it my imagination or does @-1 doesn't work as a ticket reference > anyway? Setting up a project with an appropriate name on first launch or > during setup seems like a good way to deal with this.
It's already possible to do this when running bloodhound_setup.py, using the --default-product-prefix option. Maybe we should incorporate this as a step in the setup wizard as well? > > And another thing.. aren't we meant to have ticket numbers being used > sequentially within each product? Would this break anything else? The ticket id is an auto-incremented database key, so I don't think that would work. Also the links in the old format (wiki and URLs) should remain the same after upgrade to multiproduct, since they may be referenced externally. (see http://apache.markmail.org/thread/itozn4ui5f4ntrut) > > Cheers, > Gary
