feature request #5795
[DISCUSS] Do we need comb. ined. as a nomenclatural status?
100%
Description
Related issues
Associated revisions
ref #9272 add 5 new nomenclatural status types
History
#1 Updated by Andreas Müller about 5 years ago
Hallo,
ich habe nichts dagegen – nur das die Liste der Abkürzungen länger wird. Kann man da eigentlich die Reihenfolge konfigurieren (häufige an den Anfang)? Ist auch ein Desiderat für andere lange Listen (ich glaube, mir war das bei den Rängen aufgefallen – kann mich aber auch irren).
Herzlichen Gruß
Walter
#2 Updated by Andreas Müller about 5 years ago
Hallo Norbert,
ich sehe gerade, dass du in http://dev.e-taxonomy.eu/trac/ticket/3046#comment:4 eigentlich Combination invalid meintest.
"Combination invalid" (ist eigentlich = invalid.) "comb. ined."
Diesen Status haben wir ja bereits als comb. Inval. Kannst du nochmal checken, ob du hier wirklich den Status comb. Inval. meintest.
Ich war da etwas irritiert, weil Greuter kürzlich das Kürzel ined. für noch nicht publizierte Namen verwendete. Also dass, was bei uns wohl über nom provis. abgedeckt ist.
Wenn comb. inval. und comb. ined. das gleiche ist, können wir dann auch http://dev.e-taxonomy.eu/trac/ticket/5795 schließen.
Viele Grüße,
Andreas M.
#3 Updated by Andreas Müller about 5 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.1 to Release 4.2
#4 Updated by Andreas Müller almost 5 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.2 to Release 4.3
#5 Updated by Andreas Müller over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.3 to Release 4.4
#6 Updated by Andreas Müller over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.4 to Release 4.5
#7 Updated by Andreas Müller over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.5 to Release 4.6
#8 Updated by Andreas Müller over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.6 to Release 4.7
#9 Updated by Andreas Müller about 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.7 to Release 4.8
#10 Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.8 to Release 4.9
#11 Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 4.9 to Release 4.10
#12 Updated by Andreas Müller over 3 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Target version changed from Release 4.10 to CDM UML 5.0
#13 Updated by Andreas Müller about 3 years ago
- Target version changed from CDM UML 5.0 to CDM UML 5.5
#14 Updated by Andreas Müller over 2 years ago
- Priority changed from New to Priority14
#15 Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 years ago
- Target version changed from CDM UML 5.5 to CDM UML 5.15
#16 Updated by Andreas Müller 12 months ago
- Target version changed from CDM UML 5.15 to CDM UML 5.25
#17 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Related to feature request #9272: Add missing nomenclatural status added
#18 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Private changed from Yes to No
#19 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
#20 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Parent task deleted (
#5794)
The status has been implemented a couple of years ago so
#21 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Related to feature request #5794: Move other invalid names to the end added
#22 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Target version changed from CDM UML 5.25 to Release 5.18
#23 Updated by Andreas Müller 7 months ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
- % Done changed from 50 to 100
It has been added now. So I close the ticket.
