Look into config for StrictLinkACL option.
On 7/6/06, Sven Sternberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello!
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 08:19 -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> > I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in
There was pretty extensive discussion of this on the mailing list, along
with a new configuration file preference.
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:28:14PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 08:19 -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200,
Hello!
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 08:19 -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> > I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
> > access rights handling
>
> 3.6.0rc2 should revert this functionality. Want to give it a test
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
> access rights handling
3.6.0rc2 should revert this functionality. Want to give it a test?
JEsse
> Situation:
>
> Two Queues named qa and qb. The
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:59:58AM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> Does anyone feel that this change should _not_ be reversed? Should the
> change only trigger if two txns are recorded? Should that second
> transaction simply be run as the RT_System user?
>
My first preference would be to record th
Jesse Vincent wrote:
Does anyone feel that this change should _not_ be reversed? Should the
change only trigger if two txns are recorded? Should that second
transaction simply be run as the RT_System user?
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:30:51AM -0400, Stephen Turner wrote:
At Thursday 5/11/2006
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 11:59 -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> Does anyone feel that this change should _not_ be reversed? Should the
> change only trigger if two txns are recorded? Should that second
> transaction simply be run as the RT_System user?
I tend to agree with the OP. It seems to me that li
Does anyone feel that this change should _not_ be reversed? Should the
change only trigger if two txns are recorded? Should that second
transaction simply be run as the RT_System user?
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:30:51AM -0400, Stephen Turner wrote:
> At Thursday 5/11/2006 10:27 AM, Jesse Vincent w
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 10:27 -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> > I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
> > access rights handling
>
> That's correct. There were complaints about the old behaviour. I can't
>
At Thursday 5/11/2006 10:27 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
> access rights handling
That's correct. There were complaints about the old behaviour. I can't
r
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:58:11PM +0200, Sven Sternberger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
> access rights handling
That's correct. There were complaints about the old behaviour. I can't
remember if simply changing the default about how man
Hello!
I noticed that ther is a difference between 3.0 and 3.6rc1 in the
access rights handling
Situation:
Two Queues named qa and qb. The user has the right to modify tickets
in qa but not in qb. In 3.0 it is possible, to set a link
from a ticket in qa to to a ticket in qb. In 3.6 I get permiss
12 matches
Mail list logo
