[Opensim-dev] Fwd: mantis resolved vs. closed

[James Stallings II]

Another approach to this issue, which more closely tracks the way in which
the broader group wants to use mantis, would be to take the elimination of
ticket states to the extreme, and have only two states: Unacknowleged (e.g.,
the issue has been reported), and Acknowleged (e.g., the ticket has been
seen and assigned.

Using these two terms achieves the goal of simplifying ticket state, and
leaves the final disposition of the ticket in an open state, until such time
as the submitter closes it or it is cleaned up by others working to maintain
the mantis in a more general sense.

Cheers
James

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 8:24 AM, James Stallings II <
james.stallings at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, the states are confusing. That was the point of the whole thread, I
> think :)
>
> Taking more states out will not necessarily cause mantis to reflect the
> state of an issue more accurately, and will potentially add to the confusion
> if insufficient states are shown that dont correlate with the facts.
>
> I would remind you all that this is precisely what happened with idb and
> myself: mantis, for whatever reason, showed me a state for my issue that did
> not reflect the facts. Worse, it reflected actions by idb he did not
> actually take, and spawned a big misunderstanding.
>
> I urge you to take the appropriate action to cause tickets to reflect the
> actual state of the issues that are reported; otherwise, you just continue
> to sew seeds of misunderstanding and confusion.
>
> If the problem with tickets and their states is that there are too many
> tickets, or too many tickets of poor quality, or too many tickets abandoned
> by their reporters, then the solution is not to limit the number of
> available states for an issue; rather, the solution is to limit access to
> the ticketing system to approved bug reporters.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Johnson <adjohn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on removing states rather than adding as well.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM, MW <michaelwri22 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > +1, lets not make things even more complicated. A lot of people aren't
>> sure
>> > what state to set already. So if we made some changes my vote would be
>> more
>> > for removing some of the states, rather than adding more.
>> >
>> > Jeff Ames <jeffames at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I was originally thinking that we might have more states in mantis
>> > than we really use, so I agree with Mike that we probably don't need
>> > to make it more complicated.
>> >
>> > If people do find separate 'resolved' and 'closed' states to be
>> > useful, though, I'm happy with leaving them as is. They do seem to
>> > end up closed eventually one way or another, so it's not a big deal.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Opensim-dev mailing list
>> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Opensim-dev mailing list
>> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> http://osgrid.org
> http://del.icio.us/SPQR
> http://twitter.com/jstallings2
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
>



-- 
===================================
http://osgrid.org
http://del.icio.us/SPQR
http://twitter.com/jstallings2
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090131/d01f2c2d/attachment-0001.html>