Subject: [Tools-discuss] Issue tracker suggestion

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:13:59 -0400

We are using the issue tracker for the LISP WG, to make sure we don't 
forget issues that are raised.  (That seems to be one of the primary 
goals of the tool, and it does that very well.  Thank you.)

While doing so, I noticed a state that I would have found helpful.  When 
a document editor thinks that they have resolved an issue, it would be 
very helpful if they could change its state to reflect that fact.  Since 
the resolution is not complete, and may even not be confirmed by the 
original person who raised the issue, I don't want to go directly to 
closed state.  So I was wondering if it made sense to have a state like 
"resolution proposed" or even "resolved", that one can choose to go to 
before going to "closed".

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:08:07 +0200

Hi Joel,

> before going to "closed".

I've now modified the workflow for lisp's tracker, so that it has a new
'resolved' state, which needs to be set (with the appropriate resolution)
before going to closed:

accept = new -> assigned
reassign = new,assigned,reopened -> new
reopen = closed -> reopened
resolve = new,assigned,reopened -> resolved
close = resolved -> closed

Alternatively, if you would prefer it, we can make 'closed' reachable
also without going to resolved; that however leaves it as indeterminate
when one is required to set the resolution -- I don't know how Trac will
take to that...  However, if you'd prefer that variant, let me know and
we can try it.

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:00:22 -0400

Thank you.  What you have done looks perfect.

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:01:53 +0200

> Thank you.  What you have done looks perfect.

Ok, good.  That begs the question:  Is this something which
should be applied generally to all WGs which haven't requested
a different workflow?

Best,

	Henrik