Hmm, I have a concrete example: wish: FOP-1785 [1], Auto Table Layout patch #1: FOP-1226 [2], [PATCH] auto table layout -- dirty draft patch #2: FOP-1674 [3], [PATCH] auto table layout - yet another patch
There are 2 patches and 1 bug/wish that are about the same topic. today, the only relation is dependence indicator between the 2 patches, but they all clearly serve the same main topic: wish to implement AutoTableLayout, witch is described by the Wish task (IMHO, the mother task). Same situation can occur with a bug. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-1785 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-1226 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-1674 2012/12/19 Glenn Adams <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Pascal Sancho <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Jira comes with >> - a new field [Type] that didn't exist in Bugzilla, with following >> entries: >> " Bug", "New feature", "Improvement", "Wish", "Task", and "Test". >> - the opportunity to create sub-tasks. >> >> I propose the following usage: >> >> "Bug": a bug report, and only that >> >> "New feature" and "Improvement": >> - contributor patch (rather than add "[patch]" in summary), >> - committer contribution >> >> "Wish": new feature request >> >> "Task": team process (like release). >> >> When a contributor proposes a patch to fix a bug, he should create a >> sub-task (type "Improvement") rather than change the summary and the >> type of the issue. >> So, bug discussion and patch comments will be in separate tasks. >> >> WDYT? > > > Personally I prefer bug discussion and patch comments to be in one issue. > This makes it easier (for me) to keep track of activity instead of having to > look in multiple places. If there is a legitimate need for a [Meta] issue > that covers multiple sub-issues/tasks, then that's ok, but should include a > [Meta] tag in its description, and then indicate it is blocked by the > sub-issues. -- pascal
