[almighty] Idea: modelling iterations

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Michael Kleinhenz wrote:

> Another possible model would be to have Iterations itself as a WIT.
> Although this would require much more work on manage iterations (like,
> create iteration would mean actual creation of a WI instead of just
> attaching a label value). On the other hand, querying for iteration
> contents could be simpler (by using query ops already there for
> queries on WIs).

I think this would be going too far IMO.

Iterations and labels feels to me like things that warrants first class 
citizen and
not just something encoded inside the generic work item.

That said - I agree that things like iterations and other data that are 
used
for grouping/categorizing should be as nice and light to use. Nothing 
worse
having to do several clicks to just put something in a specific bucket 
when
it could be done by typing a label/version/iteration etc. and have it 
created on the fly.

My preference for anything use for categorisation/grouping is to
allow defining strictly hierarchical taxonomies via a path like 
structure.

i.e. Alpina/#116 and Banxia/#119 as iterations allowing to "encode" 
release train+sprint and
ten be able to put issues into Alpina/#116 or Alpina dependent on what 
granualarity that makes
sense.

Same for areas/components/labels could be useful as hierarchies that can 
be created on the fly
or if a project chooses "locked" down.

Now writing through these one could maybe just have a "Categorisation 
type"
   and "Categorisation" and say work items can have fields of type 
"Categorization".

i.e. Areas, Components, Labels, Iterations, ...

And these have name, (optional) description, (optional) time frame 
(start/stop).

Initially I would probably limit users access to customize the category 
types, but
it seems like it would be interesting to model these categorisation 
fields in a similar manner
and then at the UI/UX layer visualise them what fits best for them.

Hope that makes sense ;)
WDYT ?

/max
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Michael Kleinhenz 
> <kleinhenz at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know if core already has iterations in place with it's core
>> model. If not, would it be a good idea to model the iterations with
>> labels (or tags or keywords, whatever it can be called)?
>>
>> This would generalize the concept of wi-to-iteration mappings to a
>> more generic approach and would possibly enable much more flexibility
>> with different planning approaches (like, Scrum 4.0 in 2033 ;-).
>>
>> An iteration mapping would then just be a special case of label.
>>
>> See GMail as a very similar case: generalizing the concept of folders
>> (mail-to-folder mapping) to labels, enabling lot's of interesting
>> usecases.
>>
>> -- Michael
>>
>> --
>> Michael Kleinhenz
>> Principal Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat Deutschland GmbH
>> Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
>> 85630 Grasbrunn
>> Germany
>>
>> RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
>> Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
>> Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht 
>> München,
>> HRB 153243,
>> Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
>> Michael O'Neill
>
> -- 
> Michael Kleinhenz
> Principal Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat Deutschland GmbH
> Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
> 85630 Grasbrunn
> Germany
>
> RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
> Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
> Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht München,
> HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
> Michael O'Neill
>
> _______________________________________________
> almighty-public mailing list
> almighty-public at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen