[rt-devel] Re: [rt-commit] CVS commit: rt
jesse at fsck.com
Wed Mar 22 14:47:56 EST 2000
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:41:21PM +0100, Tobias Brox wrote:
> > It would mean that whenever that entry in Watchers matches the current
> > transaction, the NotifyWatchers.pm action
> You never told about NotifyWatchers.pm, but it might be a good idea.
> Though I'm not sure about it.
That's because I hadn't gotten around to dealing with it yet. sorry
> > would send mail to the watcher's email
> > address with the template listed in the watchers table.
> Regardless of which transaction is beeing done? Might be a good idea.
> Then NotifyWatchers clearly need to be narrowed to only Bcc and Cc
> watchers. Anyway, different templates might be wishable for different
> transaction types...as the defaults I've putted in, they're related to the
> different transaction types, rather than personal preferences.
As an aside, I think I'd like to change it from Cc and Bcc to Cc and Administrative Cc.
Cc/Bcc didn't make enough sense when trying to explain who should get comments and who shouldn't.
> > This can be done but only via scrips.
> Today we have three levels of subscription; "All transactions", "comments
> and correspondence" and "correspondence only". I think it should be
> very easy to keep those three levels (at an individual level) and still
> possible to add flexibility. I can't see any good ways to fix this with
> the current design ideas ... maybe with the exception of adding a field
> for transaction type to the watchers.
The original idea was that for more complex behavior, we would build more complex
actions. That's what &IsApplicable is for
> I fear that both scrips and watchers might be filled up with really a lot
> of almost similar entries if we add too many fields to those tables.
> Particularly I think it will be a Wrong Thing To Do to duplicate the
> description field in the Scrips. Moving things out and into new tables
> might be a solution.
*nod* I'll take a look
> > > transaction - how do I turn it off?
> > >
> > > ...sorry, you can't.
> > >
> > Your RT administrator can change the scrips for your queue.
> > Lets not completely overhaul scrips for 2.0. We can do the cool stuff
> > with order-of-evaluation, etc for 2.1
> Okay, okay ... let's try to Keep It Simple Stupid and cut corners where
> possible. Those who need more functionality can always manage to get it
> hacked in locally. Anyway, I think we _must_ provide the features that
> are available in 1.0. There it's possible at queue level to indicate if
> an owner is to be mailed or not. Okay, okay, it can be done from the
> Scrips table. Never mind :)
> > Like I said above, lets leave this for 2.1. It's not ideal, but I want
> > to get 2.0 out by june
> Yeah ... but remember, we also need a functionable admin tool until then.
> And it must be easy to use for those who are familiar with 1.0.
> Well, what the hell ... just let people add and remove the default scrips
> at a queue level.
That's what they've got to do now. and we only give them 7 choices of scrip as it is.
> Hm, that is a thought - I think the Right Thing To Do would be to
> extract the queue from Scrips to a new table which only links queues and
> scrips. It would be quite straight forward to fix this, and it would be
> quite straight forward for an admin tool to add and remove scrips for
> > > I'm subscribing to queue 2, but I don't want to receive activity on ticket
> > > #456. Can I turn it off?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > /* What about letting one Quiet Watcher item turn off an active watcher
> > > item? */
> > >
> > No fundamental objection, but lets leave this for now.
> *nod*. Cool feature thought for 2.1.
We'll need some incenitive to make people upgrade.
> Tobias Brox (alias TobiX) - +4722925871 - _urgent_ emails to
> sms at tobiasb.funcom.com. Check our upcoming MMORPG at
> http://www.anarchy-online.com/ (Qt) and play multiplayer Spades,
> Backgammon, Poker etc for free at http://www.funcom.com/ (Java)
jesse reed vincent -- jrvincent at wesleyan.edu -- jesse at fsck.com
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
<lamont> I'm reasonably sure that at least two of the electric blue kangeroos
I saw were real.
More information about the Rt-devel