Adoption request

[Ryan J Ollos]

I'm currently maintaining the PrivateTicketsPlugin. I'd like to merge whatever additional functionality this plugin provides into the PrivateTicketsPlugin. If you are still interested in maintaining this plugin, I'd be open to collaborations. It would be great if we could pool our efforts towards a single plugin.

[Norman Rasmussen]

The two plugins do provide very different functionality: PrivateTickets changes a ticket's visibility based on virtual-group membership etc. VirtualTicketPermissions allows you to configure a workflow based on the virtual-group memberships.

If you want to merge them, that's fine I don't mind. I don't have time to maintain trac plugins anymore, so the offter to help is greatly appreciated!

[Ryan J Ollos]

Thank you for the reply. I hadn't understood how VirtualTicketPermissionsPlugin was different, since the descriptions for the two plugins are nearly the same. The word workflow isn't mentioned on the VirtualTicketPermissionsPlugin page once, outside of the configuration section, the codes are nearly identical and I had overlooked the [ticket-workflow] example on the main page. Maybe I'll try to touch up the description as a first step, to make its purpose more obvious.

I'll have to give some more thought as to whether it makes sense to merge these two plugins together, but I'm happy to take over maintenance either way since the codes are so similar.

[Norman Rasmussen]

Also could you apply the patch from bug 8926 (adds TICKET_IS_NOT_*, and a copy of [9814]). It'll supersede jlove's patch to add TICKET_IS_NOTOWNER (mentioned on the wiki) too.

[Ryan J Ollos]

Replying to normanr:

Also could you apply the patch from bug 8926 (adds TICKET_IS_NOT_*, and a copy of [9814]). It'll supersede jlove's patch to add TICKET_IS_NOTOWNER (mentioned on the wiki) too.

Yeah, I'll take a look and see if I can get that committed.

[lkraav]

Heya rjollos. It looks like I will base my ticket management on top of this type of privacy model. Can I ask what the current state of this ticket's topic is? Did PTP reach feature parity with VTPP over the past 2 years?

[Ryan J Ollos]

I can't recall exactly, but I suspect that I didn't finish the work. I'm unlikely to finish it soon given my focus on the Trac core. If you want to push some changes just let me know and I'll give you commit access.

[Norman Rasmussen]

So just to clarify: VirtualTicketPermissionsPlugin and PrivateTicketsPlugin are neither sub-set or super-set of each other, they have orthogonal feature sets:

• PrivateTicketsPlugin: "Allow users to only see tickets they are associated with", this is just to limit the visibility of tickets. i.e. based on _permission_ determine if the user can perform the action (view ticket).

• VirtualTicketPermissionsPlugin: "Creates a set of virtual permissions for tickets that the user is associated with", these permissions can be used to customize workflow. i.e. based on desired _action_ determine if the user has the permission.

So I'm not sure that it makes sense to bundle them together in this case. There's no way for them to reach "feature parity" because they do different things.

[Steffen Hoffmann]

Replying to normanr:

So just to clarify: VirtualTicketPermissionsPlugin and PrivateTicketsPlugin are neither sub-set or super-set of each other, they have orthogonal feature sets: ... So I'm not sure that it makes sense to bundle them together in this case. There's no way for them to reach "feature parity" because they do different things.

Sure, but I guess that Ryan's thoughts went more towards bundling complementary things to reduce the number of plugins needed.

[Norman Rasmussen]

Yea, I guess you could do that. I know some people will only want to install what they actually use, but I guess if it's not configured, then it shouldn't make a difference.