[development] The "postponed" issue status

[Randy Fay]

Derek, your opinion is informed and has lots of history.

Technically, is it just a tweak to add "blocked"? Just a config item?

Socially/workflow-wise, do you object to adding blocked, or think it would
add to much to people's confusion?

-Randy

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Alex Bronstein <alex at craftyspace.com> wrote:

> I'd be ok with either one of these options:
>
> 1) Don't add "blocked". Treat "postponed" as a superset of "blocked". So,
> something can either be "postponed" because another issue needs to be
> resolved first, or it can be postponed for other reasons, like the person
> who feels responsible for the issue wishes to convey that they're putting it
> off their radar for a while, until they feel like picking it up again some
> day. Although these are very different concepts, I don't think it's so bad
> to bundle them into a single status as we do now. But, if "postponed"
> includes "this issue is very much alive, but is stuck until another issue is
> resolved", then we must change the "79 critical issues (D7)" link in the
> "Contributor links" block to include "postponed". Otherwise, we have the
> wrong count and lose awareness of issues that still must be solved.
>
> 2) Add "blocked" and include those, but not "postponed" issues in the count
> of critical issues remaining.
>
> My preference is for the second, but I think the first is acceptable. What
> I think is a problem right now is that we have some critical issues marked
> as "postponed" thinking that's the correct status for blocked, but those
> issues not showing up in that link that people are increasingly paying
> attention to.
>
> Alex.
>
> PS: Not sure if this conversation should move to an issue. Perhaps it
> should if it starts getting more responses, but at least for now, I see some
> value in continuing it on this email list.
>
>
> Derek Wright wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2010, at 3:09 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think a blocked issue status would be helpful,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps, although I'm concerned about the overwhelming number of choices
>> we already have and ask users to navigate and understand.  There have been
>> multiple bikeshed-of-doom threads about the whole question of issue status
>> names and meanings, for example:
>>
>> "Reorganise project issue statuses"
>> http://drupal.org/node/171350
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> especially if the ability to build block relationships was available.
>>>  This would allow for the display of all blocking and blocked by issues to
>>> be listed for each issue.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right.  This would be slick, but would require some new plumbing:
>>
>> "relationships between issues integrated with the status field"
>> http://drupal.org/node/44162
>> http://groups.drupal.org/node/555
>>
>> Other related topics:
>>
>> "Provide a mechanism for issue meta discussions"
>> http://drupal.org/node/569552
>>
>> "Enable CCK and node_reference"
>> http://drupal.org/node/651484
>>
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> -Derek (dww)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Randy Fay
Drupal Module and Site Development
randy at randyfay.com
+1  970.462.7450
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20100603/6850209d/attachment.html