[rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket's history?

[Drew Barnes]

Re-reading your original, I think I see where our minds got crossed.  I 
originally read it as a client clarifying her original request in an 
email into your RT box, after you had already commented.

Upon re-reading, it now seems that she is emailing you and you are 
copy/pasting her emails into the ticket history.  As a result, my fork 
solution will not work since you are putting her comments into the history.

Is there a reason you are not corresponding directly through RT?  This 
is where, if a clarification comes in and it changes the ticket in such 
a way that your previous comments no longer make sense, you could fork 
it to a new one and disregard the older comments that no longer apply.


Philip Haworth wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Drew, I have read up the thread I think you are
> refering to
> (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/users/16448?search_string=Dirk
> %20Pape%20fork;#16448), however this is not the issue.
>
> My request for a threaded History view is just a visual display of
> information - the ticket itself is still valid, it does not need forking
> at all, there are no separate issues to deal with. This is just an issue
> of visually associating a child comment in a ticket (that has been
> created by clicking the 'comment' link of a parent comment) with the
> parent comment.
>
>
> Philip Haworth
> Support Developer
> Scout Solutions Software Ltd
> 01905 361 500
> philiphaworth at scoutsolutions.co.uk
> scoutclientsupport at scoutsolutions.co.uk
>
>
> This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
> intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information
> which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you are
> not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take
> any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If you have
> received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at Scout
> Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this e-mail
> immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
> Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
> any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient's
> responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
> them.
>
> If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
> and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
> stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions. 
>
> Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
> number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
> Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drew Barnes [mailto:barnesaw at ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu] 
> Sent: 20 March 2008 17:21
> To: Philip Haworth
> Cc: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket's
> history?
>
> I have installed Dirk Pape's fork patch and just fork a new ticket in
> this instance.  I then resolve the original and everything is still
> preserved.
>
> Philip Haworth wrote:
>   
>> Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery 
>> failure without a reason given for the first attempt.
>>  
>> Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it 
>> will be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for 
>> will settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses as
>>     
>
>   
>> they would arise.
>>  
>> During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At 
>> the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the 
>> ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the 
>> ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second 
>> email clarifying her original support request, straight after the 
>> original email had been sent - however as I wasn't aware of this email
>>     
>
>   
>> at the time, it hadn't been added to the ticket straight after the 
>> opening comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link of
>>     
>
>   
>> the opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has 
>> been superseded with this new email; entered the email in then 
>> submitted the Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to 
>> the end of the History list for the current ticket - this wasn't what 
>> I was after.
>>  
>> I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original 
>> comment to indicate that it was a 'reply' to the original comment - 
>> otherwise someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not 
>> realise that the client had sent a second email clarifying her first.
>>  
>> Basically I'm after a threaded view of the relationship between the 
>> ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised 
>> Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this 
>> something that's in RT's settings, or is it outside the current spec 
>> of RT? Unfortunately I'm just a user of the system and don't have the 
>> knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT administrator
>>     
>
>   
>> if any required code changes are easy enough.
>>  
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
>>
>> Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: 
>> sales at bestpractical.com
>>
>>
>> Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. 
>> Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
>>     
>
> ______________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>