-
Suggestion
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
System Date Friday, 11 Nov 2005
System Time 10:59:09
Java Version 1.5.0_04
Java Vendor Sun Microsystems Inc.
JVM Version 1.0
JVM Vendor Sun Microsystems Inc.
JVM Implementation Version 1.5.0_04-b05
Java Runtime Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition
Java VM Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM
User Name SYSTEM
User Timezone America/Los_Angeles
User Locale English (United States)
System Encoding Cp1252
Operating System Windows 2000 5.0
OS Architecture x86
Application Server Container Apache Tomcat/5.5.9
Database type mssql
Database JNDI address java:comp/env/jdbc/JiraDS
Total Memory 127
Free Memory 105
Used Memory 22
Uptime 3 minutes, 42 seconds
Edition Enterprise
Version 3.4
Build Number 106
StandaloneSystem Date Friday, 11 Nov 2005 System Time 10:59:09 Java Version 1.5.0_04 Java Vendor Sun Microsystems Inc. JVM Version 1.0 JVM Vendor Sun Microsystems Inc. JVM Implementation Version 1.5.0_04-b05 Java Runtime Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition Java VM Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM User Name SYSTEM User Timezone America/Los_Angeles User Locale English (United States) System Encoding Cp1252 Operating System Windows 2000 5.0 OS Architecture x86 Application Server Container Apache Tomcat/5.5.9 Database type mssql Database JNDI address java:comp/env/jdbc/JiraDS Total Memory 127 Free Memory 105 Used Memory 22 Uptime 3 minutes, 42 seconds Edition Enterprise Version 3.4 Build Number 106 Standalone
-
719
-
135
-
NOTE: This suggestion is for JIRA Cloud. Using JIRA Server? See the corresponding suggestion.
Problem Definition
Currently JIRA allows all users to clone issues. As a JIRA Administrator, I'd like to restrict the ability to Clone issues to certain groups only.
Suggested Solution
Add a Clone Issues permission to Permission Schemes.
Original Description
The "Clone this issue" link doesn't mean anything to most of our users, so it would be nice to be able to remove this link. It should be another permission in the Permission Schemes screen (like the "Link Issues" permission)
Workaround
Use the property jira.permission.createclone.denied in each status of the workflow and set the value to true, it should work.
This process disables Clone as well as Split operation.
Note
The above-mentioned workaround of using the property "jira.permission.createclone.denied" is invalid since the property does not exist in Jira. What actually happens is that Jira interprets the property as "jira.permission.create.denied". Due to this, the creation of cloned issues is disabled. However, since this disables the entire issue create permission, it also disables the creation of child issues as mentioned in the recently closed bug ticket (JRACLOUD-80788).
- duplicates
-
- Gathering Interest
- is duplicated by
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
- is related to
-
- Closed
-
- Gathering Interest
-
- Gathering Interest
- relates to
-
JRACLOUD-80788 Using jira.permission.createclone.denied property in Jira Software disables the creation of Child Issues in Epics
-
- Closed
-
- mentioned in
-
Page Loading...
| Form Name | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[JRACLOUD-8497] Ability to disable "Clone Issue" link per project
I noticed quite a few comments from the early stages, but I'm curious—has there been any progress since then? Or is it already wrapped up? +1
Only 19-year old suggestion. I will just give it a vote. Might not help to dust it off but you should never give up hope.
Hey dac3a3fc0734
How is this bug Invalid?
JRACLOUD-80788
We've raised a support ticket and the support explained the reason. It's because the property "jira.permission.createclone.denied" was never used in Cloud 🤷♂️ The list of Cloud properties is here:
[Use workflow properties | Atlassian Support|https://support.atlassian.com/jira-cloud-administration/docs/use-workflow-properties/]
They'll update the bug too.
And this Suggestion is for bringing this feature (to disable cloning) back.
How is this bug Invalid?
JRACLOUD-80788
It says it's resolved in 
This feature is gathering interest for 19 years, do we wait another 19 years for it to be implemented? 
I heartily endorse this feature request.