|> Is there any problem with us using priority number which have 1 as
|> HIGHEST setting? I know this is the opposite of how they are
|> explained in the wiki, but our manager wants them to work “the way
|> everyone else works”. If we don’t want to use automatic changes to
|> priorities, will this have any negative affect?
|> The notion is that our customers will expect Priority 1 to mean “Top
|> Priority”. “Priority 99” would convey they lowest of the low
|Certain portlets are sorted by priority by default, you’ll want to
|change the default sorts.
Excellent - I’ll have a look at that.
|If you actually want words, have you considered
|> 1 - Major
|> 2 - High
|> 3 - Medium
|> 4 - Normal
|> 5 - Low
|> I’m currently testing out custom fields for this, but it seems
|> clunky, and of course, it’s not possible to display them (by default
|> at least) in RT-at-a-glance.
|I’m not sure what you mean, you can change the default RT-at-a-glance
|screen’s results format, just like you could change the sort order.
Sorry, I didn’t phrase that very well. What I mean is:
By default, custom fields are not available for display in the RT-at-a-glance, and even if they were, setting them is rather inconvenient for tickets created via e-mail or the RT-API, so although we could use a custom field, we would rather not.
I think with your suggestion, we should be able to use textual names and still work “in harmony” with RT. Thanks for your reply.
Andy D’Arcy Jewell
SysMicro Linux Support
T: +44 (0) 844 991 8804
M: +44 (0) 7961 605631
F: +44 (0) 844 357 7020
CRN THE CHANNEL AWARDS 2009 WINNER
SysMicro named CRN’s Editor’s Choice for Emerging Business of the Year 2009, recognising SysMicro for our considerable growth, specifically in Enterprise Solutions.