"If I add an outgoing transition for "closed", every dev can change to this status and shorten the workflow, what is absolutly unwanted."

Do this, but only allow users in certain Global Groups (e.g. Managers, QA) to "take the short-cut" to Closed status.

Well, but how?

I don't understand how can allow Group 1 to change to outgoing transition "a" and to allow Group 2 to change to outgoing transition "a" and "b".
As far as I understand the workflow solution I can only configure which group generally can change a status.

Could you be that kind and give me an example?

My bad.  You are right -- only one group can be assigned.

Log your enhancement request here: http://gemini.countersoft.com

We will address in 3.2 release (3.1 beta should ship today).

[quote user="HarveyKandola"]My bad.  You are right -- only one group can be assigned.

Log your enhancement request here: http://gemini.countersoft.com

We will address in 3.2 release (3.1 beta should ship today).
[/quote]

We need this as well, i.e. the ability to assign different user groups to different outgoing transitions within a workflow.

Can you confirm that this functionality will indeed ship with 3.2? I looked at the roadmap but only found 3.5.

Consider this done for 3.5.

Doesn't look like this was done for 3.5....

Maybe in 3.6?

It is done for 3.5.
You can not close issues if you do not have the "Close Issues" permission.
So you can set the closed status for every step in the workflow.

I also need the similar functionality, but "Close Issues" or "Resolve Issues" permissions are actually not a pure solution.

In general I need to allow Group 1 outgoing transitions A and B, and Group 2 outgoing transitions C and D from the same initial state. Within A-D none of the Issue Statuses could have Closed Status mark (or if both A and C would have, this also does not help).

I found the issue GEM-2058 from 2008, but it is still unassigned...

Could you please tell me if you plan to implement such feature and if yes in which version? For me it is a really Show Stopper now as I have invested so much time in the system configuration and then almost at the end have encountered, that such small thing makes impossible to configure our business-process in the system :(

Thanks Anton

Understood, thank you.

Issue has been assigned to ME and we will look out how we can best get this done for next release.

Harvey, Can you look at GEM-3675 (http://gemini.countersoft.com/issue/ViewIssue.aspx?id=3675&PROJID=2) to see if it can be covered off at the same time, please? I think that there may be a similarity of purpose here.

Thanks.

Sean, we can assess it but not 100% sure this will make it in next release.