Redmine

Is it possible to plan this for version 0.8? Is it even feasible at this point? Is it too much of an architecture change?

The lack of this feature is the only thing that's preventing my company from taking a serious look at Redmine.

+1 :)

I use a very crude homemade "fix/patch" to work around this. I create different statuses and workflows per project/tracker. It ruins some of the nice summary features with some 90 different statuses (eventually i might be able to filter that as well).

I prefix workflow-name and status-name with some identifier. I have added a filter-field when creating/editing workflows to avoid the huge matrix otherwise loaded/viewed.

I would prefer not to show my changes since i'm still a novice in rails and my patches are all but rubyish (but i am learning). Default status has another crude fix needed so that users start with a status valid for that workflow.

It's dirty but working for my users at this point in time.I REALLY vote +1 for a good solution to this feature.

/T

Thomas Pihl wrote:

I would prefer not to show my changes since i'm still a novice in rails and my patches are all but rubyish (but i am learning). Default status has another crude fix needed so that users start with a status valid for that workflow.

It's dirty but working for my users at this point in time.I REALLY vote +1 for a good solution to this feature.

Go ahead and post your patch. It might help someone else and others could improve on it to make it more rubyish.

I agree with Eric. Please post your patch. Hopefully it will be improved upon and will become an official patch and slated for a future release.

+1 for this feature.

We are in the same situation. We'd love to manage all our projects with redmine but many projects have drastically different workflows.
For now we've settled on using redmine for the programming stuff and another tool for the rest - but obviously that's a less than ideal solution.

+1
Redmine should ideally allow setting master workflows and then override them at the project level if required.

Thomas Pihl wrote:

I use a very crude homemade "fix/patch" to work around this. I create different statuses and workflows per project/tracker. It ruins some of the nice summary features with some 90 different statuses (eventually i might be able to filter that as well).

I prefix workflow-name and status-name with some identifier. I have added a filter-field when creating/editing workflows to avoid the huge matrix otherwise loaded/viewed.

I would prefer not to show my changes since i'm still a novice in rails and my patches are all but rubyish (but i am learning). Default status has another crude fix needed so that users start with a status valid for that workflow.

It's dirty but working for my users at this point in time.I REALLY vote +1 for a good solution to this feature.

/T

Yes,like workflow-name and status-name for grouping the workflows and statuses...
Hope the patch...

+1 We would heavily use this feature if available. Right now our PMs have to settle on one standard, but they frequently ask for more flexibility.

+1

Thomas Pihl wrote:

I would prefer not to show my changes since i'm still a novice in rails and my patches are all but rubyish (but i am learning). Default status has another crude fix needed so that users start with a status valid for that workflow.

Make your patch public, so others can contribute.

This feature wuold be great for me, co I can use Redmine for evereyone, and not just the dev crowd.

+1
I've just proposed a duplicated ticket #2905 for this feature. It would be really nice if we have it in next version.

+1
I also need that feature

+100
Actually we can't use redmine because of lack of this feature

+1

+1

+1

+1. This would be such an amazing feature.

SPAM

SPAM

+1

+1

+1
Also for my company this feature is blocking the adoption of Redmine for our workflow. :(

+1

+1

Hi there,

I think this would be a great feature!

1. Per project settings, each projectmanager can define trackers with a workflow set for this project. They can also add trackers, which already exists (to prevent hundreds of "bug"-trackers) and redefine a workflow for their project. The workflow always will be blank or get some default values if a projectmanager adds an existing tracker to his project. This prevents some information disclosure.
2. Current existing trackers and their workflows will be reassigned to the existing projects and can be redefined after upgrade
3. If a project is going to be deleted, their will be a check if the used tracker is reused in some other project. Otherwise it will be dropped with the project too.
4. Workflow sets will always be dropped if a project is deleted
5. Tracker and workflow creation would be managed with some permissions (this way old-fashioned administrator can restrict this and manage the trackers in the old way).
6. The projectsettings (in administration) will get a new checkbox (flag), "Use own workflows". This flag defines if the projects allow own workflow and own tracker creation, if this flag isn't defined, the project will use the systemwide workflows with the trackers, which are assigned by the projectmanager.

This will help administrators, and give them the abbility to outsource some management to the corresponding projectmanager.

What do you think?

Not sure if this workaround was mentioned before, but you can create new roles for this purpose. For example, I have Role # 1 which I associate with specific statuses and workflow and only use Role # 1 in Project # 1. Then I have Role # 2 which I associate with other statuses and workflow and only use Role # 2 in Project # 2.

Not the cleanest but I think it works.

I also should mention that Admins will see all statuses regardless of roles.

+1

+1

We could really use this. Our redmine instance is used by multiple stakeholders who want their own workflows, but as is they cannot manage them themselves, but must request it from the central administrator of the redmine instance, and even then care must be taken to avoid/resolve conflict.

+1 it is highly desirable feature for multy-project deployments.

+1 I need it every day!!!
Going to try this plugin https://github.com/jjrosalesuci/redmine_auto_assigned

+100 Really!

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1 I would also require this kind of feature where workflow can be defined at a project level. Since we have project that follow different workflows and statuses

+ 1
I need different issue status for different project since we also have marketing and sales team using Redmine.

+1

+1

Maybe this is related to Feature #20384, which I implemented at work. We have been using it for about a year:

I added an abstraction layer called Workspace so you could have different workflows. You then choose which workspace each project is using.

I added a patch there against Redmine 3.3-stable. It can potentially break some plugins, I have some fixed at github.com/fredsdc.

+1

Any chance this will ever happen ?

+1

11 years later and this feature is still more than welcome. Any chance to actually have it implemented?

+1

+1

+1
At least as a first feature it would be enough to select which statuses can be visible or not by projects.
The administrator would have to take care on his/her own to maintain workflows feasible at any time a project define its set of statuses and not all combinations of hide and show might be possible. But at least...

+1

+1

I think it is a real weakness for redmine to not have workflows by project. This was also raised up but shot down in #35544.

Taking my own example here, I've got 2 trackers, Bug and Feature.
However I have a project where issues need 2 levels of approval, as well as other checks.
On the other hand, I have a project for an internal ERP where the workflow is basically just New -> In progress -> Done.

The solution here is clearly not to create 2 different trackers, that would mean that expanding on this principle would lead to having trackers specific to each project's needs.
The simplest solution as it stands would be to create specific roles per project instead of specific trackers. But we're still duplicating something per project, so this is not a good solution.

I truly think this is preventing a lot of the potential use of Redmine at scale.

Thanks :)

+1