On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Robert Brockway <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > > > These requirements sound like you are describing RT exactly. I > > Exactly what I was going to say :) > RT can fulfill most web and e-mail based support/bug tracker/incident response requirements. RT is pliable at the same time it is rock solid and durable. > It's been mu observation there some people just don't like RT even when it > ticks all their boxes. I've tried to find out why this is so. Asking > questions at multiple sites most of the answers have come down to this: > > (1) I don't like the interface > > Well ok fair enough. I've heard less of this since 3.6 however (the > interface changed). > > (2) It's just annoying. > > This one is hard to quantify :) > Also, (3) It's Perl Yes, though it's Perl done exceptionally well. And it doesn't require a Perl monk to drive it. (4) It's "clunky" Upgrade, and consult the community for best practice tips. All apps get clunky over time without TLC. Oh well. I like it and have successfully deployed it at sites many times. > Ditto. RT is a great application. -- [email protected] | 416.642.6920 | paul.nesbit (GTalk/MSN)
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
