[rt-devel] Re: Remote linking

Jesse jesse at fsck.com
Tue Apr 25 10:52:40 EDT 2000

On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:38:44PM +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
> > Interesting. I'm actually hoping to have a better inter-instance communication
> > story at some point in the future. But the auto-linking could be quite cool.
> ...we don't need it right now right here, but it would be übercool, and
> from time to time I see activity from users that it might already be   
> needed.  It's important to think about how it should be done already, so
> we won't find ourselves banging the head against the wall (or needing to
> redesign the whole idea about "links") when we (or somebody) suddently
> need to implement it.  So, I don't think we should priority this for 2.0,
> but we should absolutely supply a hacker guide about how we thought it
> could be implemented for 2.0.
What I'd like to do is have the _format_ for representing it within 2.0, but
not any code to support its use. 
> > what links were you thinking of?
> ...when RT gets a mail that actually originates from another RT instance,
> a "RefersTo" link is automagically set.  With a lot of luck and right
> access permissions, a webuser watching one ticket at instance A can just
> follow this link, and continue tracking the issue at the remote RT
> instance.
> ATOH, maybe some kind of "Merge" is better suited when two RT instances
> keep sending mail to each other on the same ticket (which will have two
> different ticket IDs).
> When somebody makes a link into another instance, there should be links
> both ways (BASE points to TARGET at both BASE and TARGET RT instance) -
> and RT should launch an email to set up the remote link.

That's kinda neat. Basically I want to deal with the possibilty of inter-site
ticket escalation.

> > Hrm. If it became instancedomain/instancename then DNS srv records could
> > be used for glue. I don't think that would suck too badly
> Hmm ... correct me if I'm wrong; the srv records is some old stuff that is
> ment to be something of the same as the mx record, just more general - a
> genious idea but unfortunately almost nobody knows about this record, and
> absolutely nobody uses it.

They're actually getting more popular and closer to a standard.  Win2k
actually adopted them for some things.. (not that that's a reason to use them,
but it means they'll be higher visibility.)

> I like the idea about using it, ATOH it might be confusing to those who
> doen't know the record and/or don't have access to a DNS.
They certainly won't be needed for "regular" RT. But for intersite ticket
relationships, I think it'll make life a lot easier. It's either that
or maintaining a full table of where every other instance you need to talk to
lives this week.

> -- 
> Tobias Brox 
> aka TobiX
> +47 22 925 871

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
 "That package looks like what I wanted, but the site was down today, 
   so I decided to reimplement it in Perl."

More information about the Rt-devel mailing list