Hi Ran, Thanks for the insight. The biggest I'm trying to point out is to have open discussions on the mailing lists when making these types of decisions. I get that you guys at Gigaspaces are colocated and probably talked about this in your office - would be good to also have the discussion here. At some point I hope Aria grows beyond Gigaspaces employees and in order for this to be a true team of individuals not just representing corporate interests, those discussions are intended to happen on the ML.
John On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM Ran Ziv <r...@gigaspaces.com> wrote: > The reason we asked for this is because we wanted to simplify some of the > JIRA mechanisms (screens, issues) but with only requiring minimal changes > from the defaults. > > From my experience having too many issue types makes it confusing for issue > reporters to choose the right one (e.g. "story" vs "improvement"). > > It's true that Documentation specifically is a valid type, but I wanted to > ask for an existing issue types scheme rather than ask for the creation of > a new one (partially because I was hoping for this to help in having this > issue be dealt with quickly, which hasn't quite proven to be the case..). > Under the current scheme, the right type for a documentation issue would be > "Task", which seems fine to me, but I don't really feel too strongly about > it either way. > > I do think types such as "test", "wish", "improvement" etc. are problematic > though, and would rather not have them around :) > > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 5:59 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I just saw this ticket in the INFRA backlog - > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-12733 > > > > Just wondering, was this discussed on the ML? I didn't see it, and I > would > > recommend leaving in ticket types like documentation. > > >
