Hi, I think the main question is, what do we use the Jira component for. Right now, I don't use it. Do we want to use it for statistics, or to be able to "monitor" or "group" issues by group? Depending on that, we can use "Maven" module boundaries, or "Logical" module boundaries. For example, we might want to add "OSGi" even though it's not a separate Maven module. "Observation", "Query", and "Security" are also in multiple Maven projects (at least jcr and core), no matter how we split or not split.
Regards, Thomas On 29.03.17, 08:59, "Angela Schreiber" <[email protected]> wrote: hi chetan i don't really see the problem with the big amount of issues inside the 'core' module. on a regular basis i look at unassigned issues and those without a component to see if there is anything in there that i missed. from a consumer point of view though i see a lot of benefit of having the structure aligned with svn because you don't have to wonder where to put stuff. kind regards angela On 29/03/17 08:02, "Chetan Mehrotra" <[email protected]> wrote: >Not sure if we should have a 1-1 mapping between JIRA Component and >Module at svn level. We can create logical components and later align >them as and when new modules are carved out. If required JIRA >components can be merged and renamed easily. > >As said having specific JIRA component for some logical feature set in >Oak allows better tracking and discovery of logged issues which is >harder with current set where "core" component has lots of different >types of issues clubbed together >Chetan Mehrotra > > >On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> >wrote: >> i agree with marcel. >> in general i would rather move forward with the modularisation and then >> adjust jira accordingly. >> >> kind regards >> angela >> >> On 27/03/17 09:26, "Marcel Reutegger" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I'm wondering if this is the best approach. Initially we used the JIRA >>>component 1:1 for modules we have in SVN. Now we also use them for >>>sub-modules like 'documentmk', 'mongomk', 'property-index', ... >>> >>>In my view this indicates that the existing modules should probably be >>>split and we'd be back to a 1:1 relation between modules in SVN and >>>components in JIRA. Alternatively, we could also use JIRA labels and >>>group issues by features like observation. >>> >>>Regards >>> Marcel >>> >>>On 27/03/17 07:57, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: >>>> I analyzed the issues currently logged under component "core" which >>>> has ~100 issues. Looking at most issues I think we can do following >>>> >>>> 1. Create a new component for observation issues i.e. "observation" >>>> 2. Avoid marking same issue for multiple component like "documentmk >>>> and core" unless the change impacts code base outside of that >>>> component like in this case outside of documentmk package >>>> >>>> This would ensure that we can get some better sense out of issues >>>> currently clubbed under "core" >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Chetan Mehrotra >>>> >>
