I'd like to vote for this capability...

We currently have very active Mingle projects with significant Story card backlogs and open Defects.  There is not currently a nice way of doing refined search from within Mingle.  Of course, power users can use Excel Export to sort and search a given view, or we can use tags or special properties being set upon creation.  Use of Excel is not strightforward, and flagging new Story and Defect cards requires that the users who are creating the new cards possess that knowledge. Neither option is fully satisfactory.

1.  We'd like as many of our staff using Mingle as possible - for communicating new stories and defects to the team. The products that we produce and sell are maintained via Mingle and are used by both external and internal customers; thus, the sources of such new stories and defects vary widely.  Entering new cards has to be simple; otherwise, it will be avoided.  The team members have made cards easy to create, but we'd also like folks to first check to see if they are creating a duplicate card; otherwise, the burden falls to the team.

2. As already noted, our team members need better-refined search capabilities for themselves.

3.  Our upper management is frustrated trying to see the forest for the trees; thus, they avoid Mingle and resort to email. Word, Excel.  We'd prefer for them to enter the information directly.  The more they attempt to do in Mingle, which they perceive as difficult, they more they shy away.

Being able to limit Search by card types would be a big first-step.  How soon might this be made available?  Further Search refinements could be added later.  Hope to see this soon.

Thank you.

We use Mingle in an engineering environment for Defense, Aerospace, national and international customers.  We define a Mingle project for each product that we produce and sell.  A product is either hardware, software, or a system.  A system is a Mingle project that performs cross-project queries.  Management uses a Mingle project to monitor the engineering process and productivity by performing cross-project queries.  We also need to standardize processes due to US and international process standards.  Our business cannot afford to have each project using its own template; thus, we have a comprehensive master template.  As our number of products increase, so will our number of Mingle projects; therefore, we really need a more robust method for improving the template as we continually improve our processes.

Hope this helps.  Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks!!

I'd like to vote for this capability as well.

We have been struggling for the last 18 months to keep almost 20 projects in-sync with our master template.  *Any* help in this area would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, you understand it now, so please make it a feature request, or at least change the name of the attribute.

To me, "user input - required" implies that user input is, in fact, required.  Note that the Mingle Help states "They will not be able to complete the transition until they select a value."  Adding to the confusion is if the transition is defined to require that a comment be entered, then the second transition will not complete until something is entered into the comment field of the pop-up.  Thus, the two attributes perform differently, although they imply "required input".

Perhaps a better name for the existing feature would be "property set - required" instead of "user input - required"?

At a minimum, maybe the Help could be clarified?

Thanks!!

Thank you for the reply.

I did see this other request, by my Managers would have a hard-enough time subscribing for one email.  If I asked them to subscribe for every value in the Managed Number List, I'm afraid I'd be laughed out of the room.

I'm glad to hear that it is being considered.

Thanks!!

I second it.