Re: [rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-07 Thread Ruslan Zakirov
On 5/7/07, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 1, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jon Forrest wrote: > A "native mode" ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote > a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed > assuming that tickets wouldn't be deleted. In these days of > m

Re: [rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-07 Thread Vivek Khera
On May 1, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jon Forrest wrote: A "native mode" ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed assuming that tickets wouldn't be deleted. In these days of massive spam, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

[rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-03 Thread Nick Metrowsky
Hi Everyone, First, thanks Jesse for soliciting input from the user community; hopefully this input will improve the quality of the software. Second, this message is not meant to be critical, as its goal to get the user community more involved in the Request Tracker development process. As

[rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-03 Thread Roman Steven
Instead of adding rows and expanding the width of the Content field to make it bigger, have it open in a window with the ability to adjust it's size. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpr

Re: [rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-02 Thread Ruslan Zakirov
Shredder is in 3.7 branch On 5/2/07, Jon Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jesse Vincent wrote: > If, for the sake of argument, Best Practical were to rewrite RT, what > would you want to see in the new product? A "native mode" ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote a ticket remove

Re: [rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-01 Thread Asif Iqbal
Would be nice to have PAM auth builtin or capabilities. On 5/1/07, Philip Kime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One thing I saw mentioned was Mandatory field support - we implemented a pretty robust Mandatory field system in RT here with a separate checkbox so that validation and Mandatory are separa

[rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-01 Thread Philip Kime
One thing I saw mentioned was Mandatory field support - we implemented a pretty robust Mandatory field system in RT here with a separate checkbox so that validation and Mandatory are separate. Also pushed all the code into the core API so it works via REST, email and GUI. This has been submitted as

Re: [rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-01 Thread Mathew Snyder
Shredder is actually native in the 3.7 devel release. Keep up with me and what I'm up to: http://theillien.blogspot.com Jon Forrest wrote: > Jesse Vincent wrote: >> If, for the sake of argument, Best Practical were to rewrite RT, what >> would you want to see in the new product? > > A "native m

[rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-01 Thread Jon Forrest
Jesse Vincent wrote: If, for the sake of argument, Best Practical were to rewrite RT, what would you want to see in the new product? A "native mode" ticket deletion function. I know that Ruslan wrote a ticket remover but my understanding is that RT was designed assuming that tickets wouldn't be

[rt-users] Re: RT 4

2007-05-01 Thread Graham Dunn
Jesse Vincent wrote: > If, for the sake of argument, Best Practical were to rewrite RT, what > would you want to see in the new product? > > Think big. The ability to set the complexity of the interface, based on the group of the logged-in user. Think Google's default interface (for front-line te