Thank you both for yor kind answers! I would like to tinker as little as possible to avoid disaster (often happens when I tinker) and help maintenance.
I can now really appreciate the idea of separating by discipline. I will definetly have to think about that. Off-topic: I never saw what Apache version it was for, I just assumed it was the latest and greatest. :) My bad. > 26 aug 2015 kl. 23:10 skrev Olemis Lang <[email protected]>: > >> 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:
