On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <[email protected]> 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 choice. > > 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 release. 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 accordingly. > We also need to remember to include sub-task in the report of issues for a > release. > > Thanks > Animesh > > > > > >
