Mainly I do need to introduce the Deferred state but I am not sure if it would be a better idea to add an aditional state or just to add it as an resolution type for the Closed state.
Feel free to add your opinion regarding both approaches.
I would say put it as a new status? Preferably the transition should be accessible from any of the statuses in your workflow... but this is only if you are allowed to "defer" your issue at any point in time.... Say, an "In-progress" issue can be "deferred" for further action later. Putting it in deferred status also means the issue has not been resolved yet (which is the case anyway). In JIRA, adding a resolution other than "Unresolved" would make JIRA think that its already resolved.
I concur with Daniel. Issues that have a resolution value don't appear in most of the canned reports and are often forgotten about and never actually resolved. In my experience issues are deferred because of a situration or reason that will be resolved at a future date, such as an upgrade to a COTS software product or management decision.
I'd go with Daniel and Joe as well.
The problem with having Closed//deferred is that Closed really does tend to mean "dead, we're not going to do anything with this ever again".
In most process flows, you probably want it separate from Closed, simply to say "we're not going to do this yet, but we will go and look at it again later".
Hey Community mates! Claire here from the Software Product Marketing team. We all know software development changes rapidly, and it's often tough to keep up. But from our research, we've found the h...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find a group
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no AUG chapters near you at the moment.Start an AUG
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local meet up. Learn more about AUGs