Hi Roger, On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) wrote: > > One problem I see with the workflow is that it assumes issues are > independent. However, larger issues often arise from combining a number of > related issues, developing a solution, and refactoring the tickets into > workable units. Perhaps we should have a way of closing an issue indicating > that it has been merged into or superseded by another issue. I’m not sure > the extent to which Burke’s proposal addresses this. > > > >
The current solution for this would be to Link the JIRA issues with an appropriate description (e.g., duplicates, resolved by, etc.) and then close the issue the the proper resolution (e.g., duplicate, won't fix, etc.). > > > > > Also, you indicate that in the first step of the 3-step process, the issue is > reviewed for sufficiency. I think it ought to include a decision as to > whether this issue is large enough to require a more formal design stage. > This first step is also where a decision not to do a particular issue is > made; this should probably be reviewed to prevent arbitrariness. > > > > As I recall this was part of the original intent of the "Needs Assessment" phase. Whether or not that triage has drifted over the last year, I can't say. But I agree with your opinions that it's the ideal time for such activities. Michael _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
