On 8/14/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Williams wrote: > > On 8/13/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ... > > >>In addition to this it is important that we keep track of what is going > >>on in terms of strategy. There are so many great ideas here in Forrest > >>that we simply can't implement them all. > >> > >>Jira is the tool for keeping track of this stuff so that we can track > >>and prioritise things. However I'm not too sure what the best way of > >>utilising this resource is. DOes anyone have an experiences to share? > > > > > > These aren't so much "experiences" as they are just thought. > > > > If you're talking about "strategy" then I don't think JIRA is the > > right tool for the job. Ideally I suppose one might use the "version" > > filter to get an idea of what each version will contain, but frankly, > > as one who looks at our JIRA quite often, I am overwhelmed by it and > > am unable to see the forrest;) for the trees [or issues]. > > It is this overwhelmed feeling that I refer to. Jira is no use at > present because there are just too many unorganised issues. Just dumped > into rough version groups. > > Jira has powerful filtering facilities, email notification (although it > seems to be broken right now), XML feeds and the like. We should utilise > it to keep track of what we *should* be doing. For example, would it be > useful to encourage users and devs to vote for issues? > > > The page, http://forrest.apache.org/forrest-issues.html doesn't help > > me either. > > Because it is generated from Jira and so suffers the same problem - it > *should* be useful. > > > I think what we need is a separate "Roadmap" document. > > Jira can be used to manage that roadmap for us. However, David and I > talked about "Roadmaps" at ApacheCon. We felt that the term Roadmap > implies we *will* implement things in a given order. We need to be wary > of that as individual devs needs change. > > Of course, there is a very strong argument for having a document that > gives an idea of what will be in the next version. Jira should be used > to create that last of issues. > > I often use the 0.8-dev roadmap as my starting point in > Jira:http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolutionIds=-1&pid=12310000&fixfor=12310040 > > The problem with this is that most issues are not well classified (in > terms of priority) and there is no distinction between bugs, > improvements, taks etc. > > Would it help to create a number of filters that would give better > "roadmap" documents from Jira > > > Not > > to duplicate JIRA stuff but to provide them in a higher, > > "feature"-level view rather than the granular, issue-level view that > > we currently have. > > I agree there is a need for such an organisation, but I would rather see > us utilising Jira in order to facilitate its management. > > Jira as powerful linking between issues. There is nothing to stop us > creating a High level issue that links to the lower level implementation > issues. We can then export all "high level" issue descriptions to create > the "roadmap" document you describe. Jira will then help us create links > between all the dependant buds, issues, tasks etc. > > > > I think this could help us in a few ways: > > 1) It would allow devs to "know" what other devs are working -- not to > > hold them accountable, just so that we know if someone has actually > > picked up the ball and ran with certain features. For example, I > > didn't follow it that closely but the "interactive Forrest" menu was > > discussed but we've don't really know (or i don't) if someone has > > taken it up or not. > > I agree to the benefit, but my approach would be different: > > In Jira you assign the issue to yourself, this signals that you are > working on it. I added the interactive forrest issue to the tracker > precisely so that someone can do that. > > Having an external "roadmap" document requires people to keep that up to > date as well - unlikely ;-) It will be hard enough to get people to > assign issues to themselves. > > > 2) It would provide our users with a good idea of where we're heading. > > This allows them to make better decisions on whether to use Forrest or > > now (e.g., oh, i can see they're planning on getting this > > functionality that I need in the next version, great). And it allows > > them to provide input if there's a feature that they really need. > > Yes, I agree with this too. But again creating a document means we need > to manage the document. I believe it would be better to use Jira the way > it should be used nd generate this document from it - that is what > http://forrest.apache.org/forrest-issues.html was supposed to be. > > > 3) It would give us a standard way of documenting some of the > > "strategic" discussions that happen on the list. Then after each > > release we could have a couple threads that revise the roadmap as > > needed for the next release based on itches at the time. > > Again, why not use Jira for this recording? Discussions still happen on > list, but conclusions are put in jira where issues can be linked, cross > referenced and assignments can be tracked. > > > 4) It would answer a question I've been having lately -- how do we > > know when 0.8, 0.9, etc. is "done" and ready for release? Having a > > feature list would allow us to check off sets of features, thus > > knowing that we're ready for release when all of the issues associated > > with the features are resolved. (i suppose there's an implicit or > > explicity mapping between features and jira issues) > > 0.8 is done when the number of outstanding issues for 0.8 is 0. This is > one thing we *have* been using Jira for. But the problem is we have, in > the past, only turned our attention to Jira when we are getting a > release ready. So it only makes sense in those last stages. > > > I guess, I just think JIRA is not well suited for allowing people to > > get their mind around the big picture of where we might be heading. > > I would think it is the way we are using Jira that is the problem, not > Jira itself. > > Do my comments above go any way of convincing people of this or am I > "barking up the wrong tree" (is that an UK or a universal saying? it's > about dogs chasing cats so I suppose it could be universal)
Yes, I guess this is a case of me not really "understanding" JIRA's power. Your reply here has caused me to look at JIRA in a new way. I always thought of it as just a simple bug-tracker but now that I took another spin around it with your comments in mind, I see how it might be possible to use it to manage exactly what I described above. Essentially using a filter for Version=0.8 AND IssueType=NewFeature_OR_Improvement get's close to what I wanted (though knowing this, we should strive for better titling and grammar). Then for specific more granular issues, just create sub-tasks on the feature. In other words, I think you're barking up the right tree, it just took some time to click for me. Of course, while it automates the creation of the Roadmap I spoke of, it would need another document (or an expansion of the issues one) to describe how to properly use JIRA. I'm not sure about universal, but it's a saying in the U.S. too;) --tim
