[rt-users] Re-opening a resolved ticket?

[D. Joe Anderson]

That sounds reasonable.  Choose one set of advantages/disadvantages or
another.  

If "new mail reopens resolved tickets" (or whatever the current behavior
might be called under an optional scheme) is set, then there are the
problems Robert Boyd mentions, which require re-resolving those tickets
(probably via the web or command line interfaces, silently, without
generating yet-another message to the chatty user that said user might use
to continue the resolve-reopen loop). 

If "new mail reopens resolved tickets" is not set, and a new ticket is
opened on receipt of a response to a resolved ticket, then if necessary
the new ticket can be manually merged back into the resolved ticket and
the ticket re-opened.

Of course, if this new ticket is some content-free response like "OK", it
is still going to need manual attention much like the first scenario.

--Joe


On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Russ Johnson wrote:

> I would think that if "correct" behavior was to not re-open a resolved 
> ticket, then a reply to a closed ticket could be made to open a new one.
> 
> Of course, this has it's own drawbacks.
> 
> At 03:09 AM 12/13/2000 -0600, Robert Boyd wrote:
> 
> >Seems like the correct action to me.  In your replies, include a line such
> >as "Replying to this email will re-open this ticket.  Please reply if you
> >have any more problems.".  It makes more sense to include a line like that
> >if you're auto-replying, and use the word "ticket" in the auto-reply,
> >otherwise they'll be scratching their heads "ticket.. huh??".
> >
> >What we don't need is customers responding to a resolved ticket with "IT'S
> >STILL NOT WORKING!" and our support crew missing it because of the ticket
> >status.
> >
> >-rob
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Russ Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
> > > solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.
> > >
> > > The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn't seem to me to be an
> > > unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
> > > the reply is ok. I'd expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn't 
> > happen
> > > from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
> > > another "this ticket is now resolved" message to the requestor. Then they
> > > reply asking why the ticket got closed twice... Do you see where I'm 
> > going?
> > > (loop loop).
> > >
> > > Russ Johnson
> > > Stargate Online
> > >
> > > telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
> > > http://www.dimstar.net
> > > ICQ: 3739685:Airneil
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rt-users mailing list
> > > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > >
> 
> Russ Johnson
> Stargate Online
> 
> telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
> http://www.dimstar.net
> ICQ: 3739685:Airneil
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rt-users mailing list
> rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> http://lists..fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> 
> 

___________________________________________________________________________
D. Joe Anderson, Ph.D             Computing Support for Botany, ZG, & BBMB.
  botsupport at iastate.edu | zgsupport at iastate.edu | bbsupport at iastate.edu
   1210 MBB, ISU, Ames, IA 5001   http://molebio.iastate.edu/support
  bcbsupport at iastate.edu .............. http://www.bcb.iastate.edu/bcblab