On 6/7/13, Matevž Bradač <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
No, you'll need the long TracLinks expressions >> 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? > Yes , please ; and require a name + prefix instead of choosing @ by default . >> >> 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. Unless we change the rules a bit ;) . Beyond that separate ticket ID sequences per-product should work ok [...] -- Regards, Olemis.
