[rt-users] RT questions (status of RT2)

[Lorens Kockum]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:27:51PM -0500, Jesse wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:10:35AM +0100, Lorens Kockum wrote:
> > This is currently the major obstacle I have to adopting RT1.
> > Ummm... how stable is RT2? :-) 
> I use it daily. and it's actually feeling pretty solid these days.

That's nice.

> There's a bit of robustifaction that needs to happen to the mail
> gateway to make _absolutely sure_ we don't lose any mail.  

OK.

> > I've looked at the buglist,
> > and I don't see any real showstoppers.  However, a lot of the
> > bugs are not not really clear to someone (like me) who isn't
> > current on the development. 
> 
> The closest things to showstoppers right now are the fact that
> an administrator who isn't careful can still break referential integrity
> on some database objects.

Just have to be careful, then :-)

> Big impediments to day-to-day use include the fact that merge
> hasn't been implemented yet,

That's very probably a showstopper for me :-( Absence on
incident merging is the major problem with the system we have
today.  Can't supertickets and subtickets be used to work around
that?

> and that RT still does all its time handling in GMT.

Haven't really seen the need for time handling yet, so that's
cool.

> Ivan's been hacking on an RT1 import tool, but it's not quite
> there yet. (though this isn't an issue for you)

Would be if I decided to run with RT1 until merge comes around
:-)

> > Is there an update to be made to the "status.html" page? 
> Yep. I've been a bit busy with other things. Sorry about that.

Don't be!  I'm sure everybody prefers (say) a bug less in RT to
an up-to-date status page :-)  Gee, next you'll be saying people
have expectations of you and of a project they haven't paid for
;-)

> > Any idea on when RT2 will be feature complete? 
> 
> That day gets closer and closer. I'm hoping to get alpha 4 out the door
> next week.  That should have a fully functional admin cli and fixes
> for the nastiest of the bugs I know about right now (the ref. integrity 
> stuff)

OK, but not the merge?

> Hope this answers some of your questions. 

More so than I dared hope :-)

-- 
#include <std_disclaim.h>                          Lorens Kockum