[Rt-devel] RT Priority logic - going against the grain

[Kevin Falcone]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Andy Jewell wrote:
> Is there any problem with us using priority number which have 1 as
> HIGHEST setting? I know this is the opposite of how they are
> explained in the wiki, but our manager wants them to work "the way
> everyone else works". If we don't want to use automatic changes to
> priorities, will this have any negative affect?
> 
> The notion is that our customers will expect Priority 1 to mean "Top
> Priority".  "Priority 99" would convey they lowest of the low
> priority.

Certain portlets are sorted by priority by default, you'll want to
change the default sorts.

If you actually want words, have you considered
RT-Extension-PriorityAsString?

> Example:
> 1 - Major
> 2 - High
> 3 - Medium
> 4 - Normal
> 5 - Low
> 
> I'm currently testing out custom fields for this, but it seems
> clunky, and of course, it's not possible to display them (by default
> at least) in RT-at-a-glance.

I'm not sure what you mean, you can change the default RT-at-a-glance
screen's results format, just like you could change the sort order.

-kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-devel/attachments/20100805/4c8cd98a/attachment.pgp>