On 8/26/15, Oscar Edvardsson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, >
Hi ! :) > I am about to set up a new Bloodhound server. I have a structure issue > though. > We aim at using the wiki and ticket system to manage three different parts > of our system. Each part may involve software/firmware, hardware and/or > mechanics, and each of these have different versions. It may look like > below. In my experience sometimes the best way to structure issue tracking is by discipline , instead of system's organisation . In a real world similarly complex deployment what I did was the following : Two BH instances , one for each intl branch . Six domains (mapped 2 to 4 onto BH instances) for each discipline (mechatronic , soft eng , automatic control , 3D design , manufacturing , sales/customer support/strategy) . Products names in those instances were mapped onto domains by prefix e.g. mech_sensor1 => mech_sensor1.mech.domain.tld , swe_app1 => swe_app1.swe.domain.tld , ... The separation of domains helped us to deal with authentication , cookies , and alike ... In each case , components + milestones + versions . HTH [...] -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc Apache™ Bloodhound contributor http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound http://blood-hound.net Brython committer http://brython.info http://github.com/brython-dev/brython Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
