On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Barry L. Kline wrote:
That is my EXACT problem. We have some queues where the admins get
paged with a ticket. Let's say that ticket #200 is created and the
admins get paged. One of them decides that 200 needs to be merged
into
100 (for whatever reason). The
I agree wholeheartedly.
Kenn
LBNL
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
Not to say 3.6.0 is perfect, but we like the current design as far
as merged tickets. If we have merged the two (using your example of
#100 and #200), then #100 really should never
(I'm pretty sure I did say this was bug the other day ;)
Patches are certainly welcome, if anyone wants to beat me to it.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:39:04PM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.
Kenn
LBNL
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Kenneth
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
(I'm pretty sure I did say this was bug the other day ;)
Yes you did.. and thus is the peril of having two threads on the same
subject displayed in a threaded mail reader...
I wouldn't know where to look else I'd take a hack at fixing
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 17:27, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
So what is the appropriate response for someone who has gotten
an email with the original number and wants to follow up but
someone else has merged it? How does that person referring
to #100 catch up? Merging it usually
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:59:05AM -0700, Tim Berger wrote:
On 7/18/06, Barry L. Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is my EXACT problem. We have some queues where the admins get
paged with a ticket. Let's say that ticket #200 is created and the
admins get paged. One of them decides
Barry,
Not to say 3.6.0 is perfect, but we like the current design as far as
merged tickets. If we have merged the two (using your example of #100
and #200), then #100 really should never be looked at anyway, other than
what was originally appended to #200. We really don't want anyone
