[almighty] Clarification around Types

[Aslak Knutsen]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Todd Mancini <tmancini at redhat.com> wrote:

> Epics are not 'special'. There are a work item type like any other.
>

I know they are not 'special' in the sense of WIT, but they are 'special'
in the sense of the Planner/Process.

The question still remains, What would you call what Epic is to Scrum, as a
generic term for a process? Is it just the highest order of 'major
portofolio planning type', the one that can't be anyones child?


>
> When creating a new Space, it's very likely that installed extensions need
> a way to augment the Space -- and this augmentation can be driven by the
> process methodology script/template chosen by the user.
>
> So, for example, when a user creates a new 'Scrum'-based Space, the Scrum
> methodology template may include in it special instructions or information
> of the Planner extension -- information such as 'the major portfolio
> planning types are Epics, Features and PBIs, in that order (or maybe order
> is deduced from work item type links?)
>
> In other words, why that list is on the side and presented the way it is
> is because of something the Planner knows and has stored into the Space.
> It's not a fundamental capability of the system -- although it's built
> on-top-of fundamental features, such as work item type categories and work
> item types.
>
> We haven't technically spelled out all of the capabilities and features of
> these methodology templates, although I believe MichaelV has that on his
> to-do list. I had given him some thoughts and materials in this space.
>

That would be nice to get ASAP.


>
> Hierarchy names: this should be defined by the work item type links,
> which, in turn, should include forward and reverse names. Again, these get
> added to the Space by the user-chosen methodology.
>

Yes of course they are, but what would you name them assuming you were the
one naming them for a methodology?


>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Aslak Knutsen <aslak at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> A few points to clear up around the generic type system.
>>
>> 'Epic'
>>
>> In the UX designs, Epic is special, e.g. it shows up as summary points in
>> the same draw as Iterations and can be created directly from the
>> 'right-click' menu: https://redhat.invisionapp.com/share/QU9U8D8GF#/
>> screens/212141138
>>
>> What is the generic term/feature for this? Is the intent to be able to
>> define as part of the Process Template which Type should be the
>> 'special/top' type? What is the equivalent type in the PDD style,
>> Vision/Experience?
>>
>> Part of https://github.com/fabric8io/fabric8-planner/issues/657
>>
>>
>> 'WorkItem Links hierarchy'
>>
>> Same as a Feature can be a Child of an Experience, a UserStory is a Child
>> of an Epic. What are the Link Forward and Reverse names for this
>> relationship?
>>
>> Relates to? Belongs to? Child of? Part of?
>>
>>
>> 'Quick Add'
>>
>> The QuickAdd feature is currently hard coded to add items of type
>> 'UserStory'. With no fixed types and no option to change the type this
>> looks wrong.
>>
>> Should the Process Definition have some option to define a 'default' Type
>> that should be used here?
>> Should the Quick Add have an option to select which type it should quick
>> add? Optionally, should the Quick Add remember the users previously used
>> type? Or possible types based on some form of role, e.g. PM's would most
>> likely create Experiences, SM UserStories and Devs Tasks?
>>
>>
>>
>> PM's input appreciated.
>>
>>
>> -aslak-
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20170123/c8326568/attachment.htm>