History | Log In     View a printable version of the current page.  
Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: CONF-3561
Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Resolved Resolved
Resolution: Duplicate
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: Jeffrey Whitehead
Votes: 12
Watchers: 6
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
Confluence

Methodology of adding users to groups is cumbersome

Created: 13/Jul/05 08:02 PM   Updated: 28/Aug/07 03:18 AM
Component/s: Permissions
Affects Version/s: 1.4.1
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Environment: solaris x86 standalone
Issue Links:
Duplicate

Participants: Daniel Ostermeier, Elle Yoko Suzuki, James Polley, Jeffrey Whitehead and Per Fragemann [Atlassian]
Since last comment: 46 weeks, 4 days ago
Resolution Date: 28/Aug/07 03:17 AM
Labels:


 Description  « Hide
The methodology of adding users to groups is rather cumbersome.

It would be better if one could edit the group directly, as opposed to going to each user and then placing them in a new group.



 All   Comments   Work Log   Change History      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Daniel Ostermeier - 13/Jul/05 11:35 PM
As is the group management screen allowing you to search for users to add? Yes, this should make things easier.

-Daniel


Elle Yoko Suzuki - 29/Nov/06 08:10 PM
i agree.

from the resulting page of the 'manage groups' link, there is a table of column 'group name' and column 'operations'.
currently only the operation 'remove' the group as a whole appears to be available.
if an 'edit' each group operation could be available also, that would make adding/removing dozens of users to/from a given group much more time-efficient.

we are using version 2.2.7.


James Polley - 01/Mar/07 11:23 PM
This issue is not just version 1.4.1, it's still in 2.3.1. It's not just solaris, it's all platforms.

Per Fragemann [Atlassian] - 28/Aug/07 03:17 AM
This issue duplicates an existing issue. I resolve it as "duplicate" so that no one continues voting on it. Please vote for the original issue CONF-2191