ariatosca-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Kilman <>
Subject Re: JIRA configuration changes
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:09:50 GMT
sounds like solid suggestion to me

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ran Ziv <> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> So over a month ago I created this JIRA ticket
> <> for the Apache infra
> team, asking them to make several adjustments in our JIRA configuration.
> It still hasn't been taken care of, but in any case John has brought it to
> my attention that these suggestions should be discussed here as well (back
> then we were pretty new to Apache, and I thought asking one of the mentors
> to create the ticket could have sufficed).
> The general theme of the requested changes is about simplifying the
> process, while at the same time not deviating too much from the default
> configuration, so not to complicate things from the other end.
> The specific changes I asked for are:
> 1) Removing unnecessary fields from the create-issue and resolve-issue
> screens - the default screens are cumbersome with fields that aren't
> relevant for our project at this time. You can see the specific fields in
> the JIRA. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> The only field that's worth noting here is "Fix Version", which is
> ambiguous in JIRA - some projects use it as "the version i'll fix this
> issue for" (i.e. planning) and others as "the version in which the issue
> was fixed". I strongly prefer we use the latter one - it makes more sense
> for an open source, community project, and is actually known at the time
> where it is set.
> 2) Changing the project's JIRA key from "ARIATOSCA" to "ARIA" - this is
> relevant for commit messages, as the key is used to link from JIRA tickets
> to commits. Since the title line must start with this, but also be limited
> to 50 characters, ARIA is much cleaner in this sense.
> John has raised concern about TM/copyright issues etc., but I'm not sure
> why this should be relevant when it's merely the JIRA project's key.
> 3) I asked to have our issue types the same as the "Aurora types scheme"
> (see here
> <
> >)
> - It's the most simplified one which was already available on Apache -
> which exactly follows the theme I've mentioned above. It also makes much
> sense, as there's no mixup in between two similar types (e.g. improvement
> vs story, wish vs feature, etc.) - which IMO far outweighs missing a very
> specific issue type.
> Epic, Bug, Story, are all well defined. Sub-tasks are technical tasks and
> can be used to divide any bug, story or task into smaller parts. And
> finally Task can be used for any technical task, whether it's a tech debt,
> missing test, documentation task, etc.
> 4) I asked for a sprint board to be created for the project. I asked it to
> be a standard scrum one, with story points etc.; Also seems pretty
> straightforward to me really.
> Please let me know if anyone has any issues with any of the change
> suggestions above so I could update my ticket accordingly.
> I would really like this ticket not to be delayed any further so lets
> decide quickly on this.
> Thanks,
> Ran

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message