Yes, I believe that’s what she wants: she wants to force RT to prompt
for a comment transaction to automagically accompany the queue change
transaction.
On reflection, it seems to me that the easiest way to accomplish
that, since the queue in which a ticket lives seems only to be able to
be changed in the GUI from Basics and Jumbo, is to further restrict it
only to the Jumbo screen, and modify the code which catches it to throw
an error on Queue changes unless the comment field has contents in it.
I’m not enough of an RT hacker to know how practical such a change to
the code is, but this sort of speaks to where I was originally going
with ticket-tracking design before I found RT, which is that every
transaction automatically has fields for both private and public
comment, regardless of what sort of transaction it is.
Yes, this would be an improvement IMHO. I really think it is better to
offer the user an opportunity to comment even if it goes unused much of
the time. The database size change would be minimal and the benefit
would be great. Our situation is that we transfer tickets back and forth
between queues to pass them off for the next stage of work. Sure, I can
go and add a comment to tell them what stage was just completed and what
was done by whom, but it seems to me that wanting to do so would be more
the rule than the exception. Is my intended usage so unusual?
Well, clearly I don’t think so, but I do not comprise the entire set
of users of RT.
So, a poll:
When you make status changes to a ticket (current queue, owner,
priority, etc), do you add a related comment
- Always
- Almost always
- Occasionally
- Almost never
?
(I’ve unthreaded this message so no one misses it.)
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:
Well, clearly I don’t think so, but I do not comprise the entire set
of users of RT.
So, a poll:
================================================================
When you make status changes to a ticket (current queue, owner,
priority, etc), do you add a related comment
- Always
- Almost always
- Occasionally
- Almost never
?
(I’ve unthreaded this message so no one misses it.)
Cheers,
– jra
No offense, Jay, but I vote for:
- Always
Vicki
When you make status changes to a ticket (current queue, owner,
priority, etc), do you add a related comment
- Always
- Almost always
- Occasionally
- Almost never
2, Almost always.
Turning the question around, the vast majority of the time I’m updating
a ticket, I either
-
add a comment (to myself, mainly) or a reply
-
use the Jumbo page to update several fields, including status, due
date, related tickets, etc, and when I do one of these multi-field
changes, I’ll usually add a comment that explains things as well.
But then, most of my coworkers don’t update things as diligently (or, as
far as I know, subscribe to the [rt-users] list), so I’m not sure if I’m
a typical user or an anomaly. I suspect the latter is the case, and that
most of the RT users here do not usually bother with comments.
Chris Devers
So, a poll:
================================================================
When you make status changes to a ticket (current queue, owner,
priority, etc), do you add a related comment
- Always
- Almost always
- Occasionally
- Almost never
?
3
Dave Edwards <dle&sympatico,ca>
Freelance and Technical Writer,
With Special Interest in Open Source Software
http://bigStory.homelinux.org
signature.asc (189 Bytes)
Well, clearly I don’t think so, but I do not comprise the entire set
of users of RT.
So, a poll:
================================================================
When you make status changes to a ticket (current queue, owner,
priority, etc), do you add a related comment
- Always
- Almost always
- Occasionally
- Almost never
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.
Les Mikesell
les@futuresource.com
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
No offense, Jay, but I vote for:
- Always
You’re not offending me; as I said, that’s the way I’d prefer that it
worked. But, 20 years of systems design notwithstanding, I don’t like
to recommend major changes to other people’s programs without a little
backup… 
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