incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]Jira process for sub-features
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:27:22 GMT
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<> wrote:
> Folks
> As we are approaching 4.1 code freeze, we should clarify the process on features that
are not complete yet but a sub set of functionality that is useful is complete. Jira supports
sub-tasks and we have used it for few longer and complex features like IPv6 and seems an obvious
> I have following questions:
> 1) Parent Task 'Fix Version' :  Should this field continue to reflect the release it
was originally targeted like 4.1 or it should reflect the 'Fix release' of the most recent
sub-task that is in progress or  to 'Future'?

Ideally, we would have "new features" that are granular enough that we
aren't having this problem as much.  Taking IPv6 as an example, that's
actually a bunch of new features.

To me, sub-tasks are best for tracking incremental tasks (code, chunks
of code, docs, testing).

I'd propose that some of these get broken up...  we may have a bunch
of sub-tasks that have to be elevated as features.  I'd like us to be
clean about "done" vs. "not done" for the features included in a

Just my 2 cents though..

> 2) Parent Task 'Status' : If few sub-tasks are 'In Progress' should parent status be
'In Progress' too? Or it should be left at 'Open' I don't think parent task automatically
track sub-task status

I'd suggest that the parent is "in progress", because it is!  It's
easier to get a high level picture of a release scope by looking at
the top level Jira issues, while the sub-tasks are useful to track the
actual work associated.  If a sub-task is "in progress", then the
parent is actually "in progress" as well.  We should update the fields

> We also need to remember to include sub-task in the report of issues for a release.
> Thanks
> Animesh

View raw message