intrigeri: > So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce > a "Needs Validation" status.
Sounds much simpler, awesome! +1 > Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the > majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided > cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign > the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that providing the > requested info needs will take me great amounts of work, I should > do whatever works for me to track this work, be it on a new ticket > or my personal offline organization tools. I quite like this feature and have set up filter rules in my email client for the resulting redmine notifications I receive so I don't miss them. However, I wonder how this works out if you don't do something like that. I also fear that the ad hoc tracking of "mentions" that you propose above is easy to forget. I just had a half-baked idea that might have some merit: say I work on ticket X and need info about "foo" from intrigeri. Then I just create a subticket Y of X called "Info needed: foo" and assign it to intri. When intri has posted the information about "foo" to X he can then mark Y as resolved. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
