[rt-users] Split Ticket

[Lorens Kockum]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:21:42AM -0500, Tony Aiuto wrote:
> As far as making the parent stalled.  I wonder about that.
> Is it *really* stalled, or is it just a function over the
> child statuses.   That is, if all the children are 'new', then
> it is 'new'.

One or all new making parent new might be discussed. I'm not
sure parent should be new since you have taken it and done
something with it !

Option 1 :

  Isn't there (couldn't one create) a status "pending on child"?
  It corresponds to my view of "stalled", so I'd use that; the
  ticket is in effect stalled pending resolution of children.

  From that point of view, the algorithm is simple: stalled as
  long as all children are not resolved, then either resolved or
  *open* again depending on whether one need to take an action.
  That would, I think, either be an option when you split up the
  ticket, or just "open" again, so it can be closed.

Option 2 :

  From another point of view, the "representative of global
  state":
  
  > If at least one is open, then it's open.
  
  Seems right.
  
  > If one is stalled, then it is stalled.
  
  That depends on what you mean by stalled (and it conflicts with
  the line above).
  
  I would say "if all are stalled then parent is stalled".
  
  Example : one ticket stalled pending resolution of a sibling
  ticket . . . I say the parent is open.
  
  This point of view could be summarized as :

    if all children identical, then parent same status

    if all children (X or resolved or dead), parent = X

    if one child open, than parent open.

  Are there more than "stalled" remaining ?

Anyway, I prefer Option 1.

I have implemented something like this in RT1.

I did not make a "split ticket" with a parameter, as suggested
earlier IIRC, but a single "new ticket from this one", which
clones the ticket date the way I want it to and then shows the
parent text, letting me copy-n-paste a chosen part into the
windown below to become the text of the new ticket.  I think
that is better than trimming down the same text n times, each
time leaving a different part, but YMMV.

-- 
#include <std_disclaim.h>                          Lorens Kockum