Bob Scheifler wrote:
Mark Brouwer wrote:
I know Bob and I don't find it very intuitive.
Dunno how to respond further to that.
I thought it was wise to call it something you couldn't held me
accountable for, saves us both a lot of time ;-)
I always used 'any' to
browse or search with a proper keyword. For example sometimes I was
curious to see what kind of issues where against the specs, sometimes I
was just interested in implementation details. Going through that pull
down menu to select all the relevant packages was one bridge too far.
I haven't actually used JIRA yet, so I can't comment on its search
capabilities. Yes, there are many possible axes that one might want
to search and/or organize on; that fact shouldn't preclude us from
picking one.
Can you also explain the advantage of such a granular level.
A typical mode of operation for someone working on a given component
is to filter down to just the issues for that component, and
Java package is a good match for component in the starter kit.
More often than not when reporting a bug you know what package it's in;
having to figure out how that package maps to some other component
naming scheme just adds complexity (which is why, as I recall, we
migrated away from earlier component naming and to package names).
I see, but sometimes a component is at the class level I guess and a
complete package name is too wide. Just searching on a package name or
class name will result in too much garbage i JIRA. But if component is
important I suggest creating a custom field called component (JIRA is
very easy to customize) where we enter the package name or class name,
this component can be individually searched.
The advantage is that the average user who really shouldn't know about
com.sun.jini.outrigger can submit its issue against "Outrigger
implementation". The developer who inspects the issue can then assign
the component and will make all the correction to priority etc.
You can even go wild with process flows to separate between issue
submitted by users and those dealt with by developers, etc. But I think
given the number of issues submitted in the past that is a bit over the top.
--
Mark
