[almighty] Clarification around Types

[Todd Mancini]

Parent/Child works for me, for now.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Aslak Knutsen <aslak at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.invisiona
>>> pp.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/e0fac207/attachment.htm>