Assigning workflow to issue type
The documentation tells me (2.2.4)
"The status values themselves can be customised and then utilised y issue workflows. Issue Workflows are then assigned to issue types – this allows different workflows for different issue types (e.g. Bugs follow XYZ workflow). "
Unfortunately, I cannot see anywhere how to actually get it to do this.
Can anybody tell me what I'm missing here?
Piquet
· 1 |
|
Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 7:58:57 AM |
0
|
Log in as admin, click on the Administration menu and Issue Status. |
||||
|
0
|
Ok, the options I've got here are...
And I understand that I can create workflows with these status values. So far I've created a workflow for Tasks, and a workflow for New Features. I want to assign each of these workflows to the relevant issue type. I'm still missing something somewhere... |
||||
|
0
|
Cannot be done in Gemini 3.0. |
||||
|
0
|
Is this still schedueled for the 3.1.0 release? Any idea when we can expect this? I would also like to put in a vote for this.. I think it would be extremely usefull for everyone. What customer feedback are you looking for? Cheers, Craig |
||||
|
0
|
Hi Craig, |
||||
|
0
|
ok... i'm not sure how often your releases are made.. When would you expect v3.2 to be released (approximately) for use? |
||||
|
0
|
3.2 should be out by Jan 2009. |
||||
|
0
|
Hello - We've been using a V2.x version for a number of years now and I have been tasked with reviewing our company usage of Gemini and how V3.x impacts/enhances out capabilities. This thread directly relates to my being able to finish modeling our entire company's task/data flow. I see that this is captured in GEM:384 and that it is on the roadmap for V3.2 but that the expected date for V3.2 has been changed a few times. What is the next target release date so that I can manage the expectations of my company? Thanks! |
||||
|
0
|
The target release date for 3.2 is April 2009. |
||||
|
0
|
Hello - I see that GEM:384 did not make it into V3.2 but tenatively moved into V3.5. This is crucial to my work but I don't know how to emplore you to make it a reality and there is no status in the task itself. Can you give some feedback as to if it will be in V3.5 and when this will be available. Thanks - Jim |
||||
|
0
|
It is still scheduled for the same release, but the release name has changed from 3.2 to 3.5. So it should still be done for the next release. |
||||
|
0
|
Hello - I see that GEM:384 did not make it into the current release and is not even scheduled anymore. This is crucial to my work but I don't know how to emplore you to make it a reality and there is no status in the task itself. Can you give some feedback as to when this will be available. Thanks - Jim |
||||
|
0
|
Jim, I appreciate your request. We do try and accomodate most of customer's requests for every release. Not all can make it so we need to push some to a later release. Sometimes it will be pushed back more than once. We have a meeting next week about 3.6 and 4.0 so we will raise this and get back to you. |
||||
|
0
|
Hello there,
please consider this as another vote for this feature! No 1 in the missing features list (so I think [:)]) IMHO an issue workflow is much more "issue type" specific than. e.g. project specific.
regards Heiko |
||||
|
0
|
100% down for completion for Gemini 4.0 release (Q4). |
||||
|
0
|
FYI - this is done for 3.6: http://gemini.countersoft.com/Default.aspx?p=2&i=2800 |
||||
|
0
|
Thanks for including this. However, it is a bit confusing that one can still define an issue workflow for a project. If I define issue workflow A for a project with an issue type that itself uses workflow B, any task of that issue type within the project will use workflow B. Is there a reason an issue workflow can still be defined per project? |
||||
|
0
|
Yes, as we didn't want to enforce users to select workflow per type. This way you set the workflow for the project once and if there is a type that need another workflow then you can add it easily. Make sense? |
||||
|
0
|
Ah, yes, thanks, that does make sense... once you know it's meant that way ;). Thanks for clearing that up. |
||||
|