[Development] New JIRA type 'Feature'? (was RE: FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process)

[Blasche Alexander]

Just for the protocol. I am actually in favor of Kai's  proposal. It is better than some mega release task as his proposal actually permits to see tasks which are not yet scheduled for any particular release.

--
Alex

________________________________________
From: Koehne Kai
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 09:03
To: Blasche Alexander; Alan Alpert; Bubke Marco
Cc: development at qt-project.org
Subject: New JIRA type 'Feature'? (was RE: [Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process)

Alright, discussion about a new JIRA type 'Feature' went on at

 https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTJIRA-233

with two different ideas:

1) That we already have too many issue types in JIRA, and adding another one makes things just worse, since the line between different types is blurry anyway

2) that a separate 'Feature' type that's can only be created by approvers, and follows stricter standards, is a good thing to let roadmap / important features stand out


I personally think it's useful, but also think it only makes sense if the type is really used by at least the majority of maintainers ...


So, I'd like to ask specifically you, the maintainers: Would you use a separate 'Feature' type? This is meant to describe things that typically would show up on a roadmap & release blog, or that you'd want to discuss with stakeholders ...

Regards

Kai


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blasche Alexander
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:32 PM
> To: Koehne Kai; Koehne Kai; Alan Alpert; Bubke Marco
> Cc: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: RE: [Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process
>
> Creating an issue type is very easy. What's not easy is to commonly agree on
> what each type means and to consistently apply them. That's something
> where no admin can help as the community has to agree upon it.
>
> For what is is worth I am very much in favor of such a feature type.
>
> --
> Alex
>
> <rant>
> Unless a benevolent dictator comes around my experience tells me that
> there won't be an agreement any time soon(10 years of issue tracking inside
> Qt seem to have gotten the better of me).
> </rant>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: development-bounces+alexander.blasche=digia.com at qt-project.org
> [development-bounces+alexander.blasche=digia.com at qt-project.org] on
> behalf of Koehne Kai [Kai.Koehne at digia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:46
> To: Koehne Kai; Alan Alpert; Bubke Marco
> Cc: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> >
> > One idea to handle this would be to add yet another issue type, e.g.
> > 'Feature' [...]
> >
>
> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTJIRA-233
>
> :)
>
> Kai
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development