Ok... as I had now some time already, I modified the tracker groups and categories. I could not add any new selection menu, so we have to live with those 2 options.
. Categories : I basically chosed the menu structure (suggested by Eric) . Groups : I changed/added to the OS . The available importance values can not be customized. so we need to live with the rating from 1..10 @Eric: Trac is an option, but it needs maintenance and an extra sever which we don't have. Sourceforge may not be the best.. but a) it meets our needs in general, b) we don't need to maintain the system and c) they are steadily improving. I hope that is reasonable? thank you for your feedback Stefan Steiniger schrieb: > Hei guys, > > and sorry for having forgotten Erics message too. > I agree, we need to review the options for bug submission. I will see > over the next days how to change that and what options for customization > of the bug report tool we have. > > thank you > Stefan > > PS: If I haven't done something on it until end of next week, would > somebody please remind me? > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >> Eric posted some suggestions to improve the way we categorize our bugs >> a few days ago. I wanted to repost it and see if any of our >> programmers had comments on the suggestion: >> >> The Sunburned Surveyor >> >> Eric wrote: >> >> go to openump at sourceforge and select 'submit new bug' and look at >> the 'category' pull-down menu selections. in this menu the user has: >> interface >> jts >> misc. >> openjump >> plugin >> wfsplugin >> >> >> the above selections serve no useful purpose for the average user, who >> in all likeliness will be reporting the majority of the problems/bugs. >> this means it serves little purpose for those who may work on >> correcting the problem. bug/ticket reporting should be designed for >> the end user, not the programmer. the association however is what is >> important to the programmer, and making sure that the ticket that was >> reported is associated with the correct page/portion/snippet of code >> that in fact is responsible. this means each source code document >> should have a plain english reference in it(commented out), or >> multiple references throughout the document as is needed/warranted. >> >> >> imo, the easiest and best way to do this is by using the gui elements, >> such as menu items, icon/button items, and contextual menu items as >> the means of reference. thus, if i was using oj, and encountered a >> bug, or have an idea of how something could work better(feature >> request), the oj repo should offer me the following when i am >> submitting a ticket: >> >> >> Submit New Ticket: >> >> >> pull-down menu #1: >> bug >> >> minor(does not work correctly) >> >> medium(works intermittently) >> >> major(does not work) >> feature request >> >> core >> >> plug-in >> >> spelling correction >> >> menus >> >> help >> >> operations >> >> appearance >> >> menu >> >> icon >> >> layout >> >> >> >> pull-down menu #2: >> vista >> >> xp >> >> os x >> >> linux >> >> >> >> pull-down menu #3: >> File >> >> Edit >> >> View >> >> Layer >> >> Tools >> >> Queries >> >> Spatial Query >> >> Attribute Query >> >> Simple Query >> >> Analysis >> >> Generate >> >> Warp >> >> Edit Geometry >> >> QA >> >> Edit Attributes >> >> Generalization >> >> Measure in Feet >> >> Customize >> Scripting >> >> Image >> Plugins >> QA >> Window >> Help ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
