Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67962 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2005 08:46:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Dec 2005 08:46:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 34216 invoked by uid 500); 22 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 34154 invoked by uid 500); 22 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 34143 invoked by uid 99); 22 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:46:46 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [213.46.255.17] (HELO viefep16-int.chello.at) (213.46.255.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:46:45 -0800 Received: from [192.168.1.31] (really [62.178.239.20]) by viefep16-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20051222084622.NYFX24236.viefep16-int.chello.at@[192.168.1.31]> for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:46:22 +0100 Message-ID: <43AA67DE.8000704@apache.org> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:46:22 +0100 From: Reinhard Poetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Jira: better use of the Priority field References: <437AF1AF.1090404@gardler.org> <20051117005442.GB16387@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <437C3DD9.6080402@apache.org> <20051119001605.GA22059@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <20051127235143.GA9490@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <20051201232501.GA20816@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <20051222081048.GA811@igg.indexgeo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20051222081048.GA811@igg.indexgeo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N David Crossley wrote: > I wonder if people just missed this topic in the > volume of recent discussions. And two days before > the silly season is probably not a good time to > try to revive it :-) Recently I came across those two articles [1][2] and I think some points of the author are interesting for OS projects too. Especially I refer to the distinction between priority and serverity (more or less the same as you do in your mail). > David Crossley wrote: > >>At Apache Forrest we have discovered some problems with >>the ASF Jira. Cocoon is going to hit these same issues. >> >>So i wonder if we can address it together. There are >>evidently some people on cocoon-dev who have used >>Jira extensively. Perhaps we need customised screens. >> >>Jira has a field called "Priority" which has the values >>Blocker, Critical, Major, Minor, Trivial. >> >>ASF Bugzilla has a different concept. It has a field >>called "Severity" with those same values. It has another >>called "Priority" which has values like p1, p2, p3, etc. >> >>The Buzilla "Severity" means the impact of the issue >>(e.g. Blocker means that it prevents development). >>The "Priority" means the importance and order in which >>it should be fixed. >>[1] http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity >> >>In my opinion Jira has these two concepts mixed up >>together. yes, I agree here >>Some other project (Xalan?) has already added a custom >>field called "fix-priority". Should we add that field >>to our issue screens and reports? >> >>This becomes confusing at the front page of a project >>e.g. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR >>where "By Priority" is listed in the bottom-right. >>They are not actually our priority for fixing the >>issues, but a list of the perceived severity. >> >>There is an additional problem. Forrest has separate >>"Plugins" and Cocoon has separate "Blocks". A Blocker >>in a Plugin is not necessarily a Blocker for the project >>as a whole. right, this is one of our goals with splitting up Cocoon into blocks >>This makes it difficult for the developers to plan what >>to work on next and which issues need to be fixed for >>the upcoming release. It also gives an unrealistic view >>of the state of the project. >> >>So do people here agree with those problems? I agree >>Do you see a workaround? Perhaps rename "Priority" to >>"Severity" and also list "fix-priority" on the front page >>and on the issue screens. I think JIRA should be flexible enough. >> >>Ross recently asked at ASF Infrastructure about the >>wider issue of separate "sub-projects". See the answer >>and other discussion about this topic at forrest-dev >>[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113213094300001 >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=113334665915625 Each block is a component in JIRA and I can get a summary of all open issues for a component. Hmm, I think that I don't understand completly the problem that you want to solve ... [1] http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/08/11/fixingbugs.html [2] http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/08/11/fixingbugs2.html -- Reinhard P�tz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach {Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon} web(log): http://www.poetz.cc --------------------------------------------------------------------