[theme-reviewers] New Ticket Resolution

[Edward Caissie]

@Gene - Thanks for confirming.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Gene Robinson <emhr at submersible.me> wrote:

> The only "action" available to me is "leave as new"   I don't see the
> ability to "accept" or claim ownership anywhere on new tickets.
>
> -Gene (emhr)
>
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Edward Caissie wrote:
>
> I have a second account I could use to test with, I would just prefer not
> to if the question can be answered without some unneeded ticket
> manipulations ... and perhaps we will find a method to implement a more
> easily identifiable and managable Trainee system, yet.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> Probably a good question for emhr, SpencerFinnell, or croakingtoad.
>>
>> (And, if I'm reading properly between the lines: I like what you're
>> thinking!)
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Question: (Without actually testing with a second user myself ... ) Can
>>> someone (Otto?) confirm if an Authenticated user can "accpet" a ticket, it
>>> doesn't appear they can do much of anything except make comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Chip is suggesting, I would agree ... looking at the WorkFlow image
>>>> (the wiki is now on my reading list), the "trainee" workflow is essentially
>>>> the following:
>>>>
>>>> New --> Assigned --> Accepted --> Closed (resolved?)
>>>>
>>>> ... with "Accepted" not currently used in any of the Theme Review
>>>> porcesses and a "Reviewer" is required to close, or make a resolution on the
>>>> ticket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> Also, just as a reminder for those not familiar with Trac, all
>>>>>> >> resolutions, no matter their label, close the ticket.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm under the assumption at this point that, unless we hear
>>>>>> otherwise from
>>>>>> > Otto or someone, that the original Trainee Workflow idea isn't
>>>>>> feasible. So,
>>>>>> > under that assumption, we'd have no need for "suggest-approval" or
>>>>>> > "suggest-not-approved" as ticket resolutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with the idea of a suggest-whatever resolution and the
>>>>>> ticket closing has to do with how trac works. When a ticket is closed,
>>>>>> changing it to another resolution means reopening it and then
>>>>>> resolving it with the new resolution. Two steps, basically. This
>>>>>> rapidly becomes annoying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the TracWorkflow *is* adjustable, but I don't know much about how
>>>>>> to do it at present. Here's a page on the topic:
>>>>>> http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracWorkflow
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who don't want to read through it all, this graphic
>>>>>> illustrates the default workflow:
>>>>>> http://trac.edgewall.org/chrome/common/guide/basic-workflow.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The wiki page has several examples of how we can modify it to have
>>>>>> "review" states or similar. We can try to implement some of those if
>>>>>> it would be helpful to the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest that, for now, let's see how the manual approach we're
>>>>> currently using works.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing that would help us would be the ability to create reports
>>>>> based on User Group (primarily, "Reviewer" vs "Authenticated"). If we can
>>>>> generate reports of tickets assigned to Authenticated users (i.e. the
>>>>> Reviewer Trainees who are not yet added to the "Reviewer" group), then we
>>>>> can probably make-do with what we're doing now...
>>>>>
>>>>> Chip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101014/9a1a2529/attachment.htm>