On Saturday 17 January 2004 04:32, J Aaron Farr wrote:
My very biased opinion: go with the aggregated view. Avalon is complicated already. The component view only seems to add to that complexity. Let's keep it simple.
I agree with your very exhaustive analysis of this. (Thanks).
Finally, I feel it would be easier to start small and grow if necessary. Most of us are new to JIRA. It will be much easier to break out issues into new projects than aggregate later.
The JIRA people must have been thinking about this before and during development, since IMHO
Category = Avalon
Product = Cornerstone
Component = Cornerstone Datasources
Seems to map fairly well with what we have and to make it reasonably manageable.
Have been thinking hard following Aaron's post. The result of that (aside from burning a few cells) is that I think the above approach is wrong in that it does not map down to the Component concern (where Component in JIRA != Component in Avalon).
Instead ... I'm thinking along the following lines:
Category = Avalon Components Product = Cornerstone Datasources Component = Documentation
The component category should (IMHO) typically contain things like "Documentation", "API", "Implementation". Using this approach assumes that we have a distinction between "Product Version" and the set of artifact versions that the product is composed of.
Cheers, Steve.
Niclas
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest | |------------------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
