We can redefine them as we see fit, and it fairly easy to do bulk changes on existing issues to re-assign components.
On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:05 PM, David Hearnden wrote: > Are those components something that can be refined later? i.e., could we > start with high-level categories, and later refine them as needed? Or are > those categories set in stone at setup time? That might strongly influence > the component list. > > (I've never used JIRA) > > -Dave > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Michael MacFadden > <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > I am starting to set up Jira. Typically one of the first things to be done > is to define the components. These components would be ones that we would > want to target issues to. I would like to get some input on what the > components should be. Things to keep in mind: > > 1) How granular do we want to be. Would "server" and "web client" suffice, > or do we need things like the wave panel vs the wave list vs the profile > management section etc. > > 2) What naming convention would we use? There is only really one level of > components, no nesting. So we might have things like Web Client - Wave Panel > and Server - Mongo DB Persistence, etc. > > 3) The point of defining components is so that the groups of people who > typically work on those components can filter the issue list based on those > components. While the architecture might logically be broken down in to > certain components, if it doesn't improve our ability to manage the issues, > then they don't have to line up 1 to 1. > > > Suggestions and input would be great. One small request, lets try to stay at > a high level here and not go down rabbit holes discussing a particular > possible component as nauseum. Thanks. > > ~Michael >
