Always. I’d be perfectly happy if the only way to set the status
to resolved was by changing it inside the comment or reply
screens.
Well, Jesse has just explained to me (off list, for some reason) that
there are enough paying customers whose workflows would be broken by
the idea that it’s not likely ever to happen.
So, nevermind.
Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Always. I’d be perfectly happy if the only way to set the status
to resolved was by changing it inside the comment or reply
screens.
Well, Jesse has just explained to me (off list, for some reason) that
there are enough paying customers whose workflows would be broken by
the idea that it’s not likely ever to happen.
RT is used by lots and lots of very different organizations with many
different policies. Changing the application to force everyone into one
notion of a policy is a sure way to make the package completely useless
to lots of sites. That’s not to say that one couldn’t build more
flexibility into the system to make it easier to enforce a site policy.
So, one possible extension would be to add comment/reply boxes to the
various other ticket update pages like “Basics” “People” and “Links.”
Would that get close to doing what you want?
Always. I’d be perfectly happy if the only way to set the status
to resolved was by changing it inside the comment or reply
screens.
Well, Jesse has just explained to me (off list, for some reason) that
there are enough paying customers whose workflows would be broken by
the idea that it’s not likely ever to happen.
RT is used by lots and lots of very different organizations with many
different policies. Changing the application to force everyone into one
notion of a policy is a sure way to make the package completely useless
to lots of sites. That’s not to say that one couldn’t build more
flexibility into the system to make it easier to enforce a site policy.
So, one possible extension would be to add comment/reply boxes to the
various other ticket update pages like “Basics” “People” and “Links.”
Would that get close to doing what you want?
Quite a bit closer to doing what not only I, but clearly, oh, 5 or 6
other people (
want. And, while I was hoping that it would be clear
that what I was suggesting was that it be possible for a site to
choose a policy which required comments on all status changes –
clearly I was wrong.
Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Jesse Vincent wrote:
Always. I’d be perfectly happy if the only way to set the status
to resolved was by changing it inside the comment or reply
screens.
Well, Jesse has just explained to me (off list, for some reason) that
there are enough paying customers whose workflows would be broken by
the idea that it’s not likely ever to happen.
RT is used by lots and lots of very different organizations with many
different policies. Changing the application to force everyone into one
notion of a policy is a sure way to make the package completely useless
to lots of sites. That’s not to say that one couldn’t build more
flexibility into the system to make it easier to enforce a site policy.
So, one possible extension would be to add comment/reply boxes to the
various other ticket update pages like “Basics” “People” and “Links.”
Would that get close to doing what you want?
The rt-users Archives
Be sure to check out the RT Wiki at http://wiki.bestpractical.com
IMO, it would be close. All I want is the option of adding a comment
when a status change like a queue transfer is done.
Vicki
IMO, it would be close. All I want is the option of adding a comment
when a status change like a queue transfer is done.
And off-list you clarify that you aren’t really trying to get it to
force the user to fill in that comment, which wasn’t clear from your
original posting – at least, not to me.
Teach them to use the Jumbo page to do those things; it has a comment
field on it already.
Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:>On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Vicki Stanfield wrote:
IMO, it would be close. All I want is the option of adding a comment
when a status change like a queue transfer is done.
And off-list you clarify that you aren’t really trying to get it to
force the user to fill in that comment, which wasn’t clear from your
original posting – at least, not to me.
Teach them to use the Jumbo page to do those things; it has a comment
field on it already.
Cheers,
– jra
I tried to clarify it in one of my on-list responses to Ruslan, but
apparently I didn’t do so. I don’t need for it to be forced, but I
wanted it to be one action that prompted for the comment (which could be
empty) and moved the ticket to the named queue. Sorry if I was unclear.
I’ll look at the jumbo option. Thanks.
Vicki