On 02/25/10 11:44, Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > We will also have the chance to do other customizations, for instance to > the workflow (as an example, we'll be able to solve this > NEW/ACCEPTED/STARTED problem by having a dedicated ACCEPTED issue status).
Ah, finally :-) > One thing I'd be interested in getting feedback for is the following > question: Do we need the issue types ENHANCEMENT and PATCH? ENHANCEMENT > isn't really different from FEATURE (at least in practice, though in > theory you could define them differently), so it seems to be > superfluous. Personally I use them as a differentiation between features that need more work and/or specification and/or significantly affect the user's workflow (FEATURE) and features that enhance current behavior and/or offer better usability and/or aren't even visible in UI and don't necessarily need a specification (ENHANCEMENT). YMMV. > PATCH, then, could effectively be a TASK with an attachment > of type "Patch". If it is possible to query for attachments of type Patch then I'd be fine with that _if_ the attachment type can be changed. Often I set an issue to type PATCH that wasn't previously because it now has a patch attached that it didn't have before. People tend to attach patches as type text/plain (probably because that is the default and a patch is a plain text file ...), so if that can't be changed we'd have no means to query for unapplied patches. Eike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
