[almighty] Clarification around Types

Wed Jan 25 11:13:51 UTC 2017

On 25 Jan 2017, at 9:55, Pete Muir wrote:

> Oh, I just realised what you are saying. You would add some sort of 
> label
> or flag to a type which indicates it is a root in the UI, e.g. by 
> putting
> the type in a category, and flagging that category. Yes, that makes 
> sense.

Yes, you got it.

To be precise, the category/tag/label is not *on* the type, but defined 
in the process definition.

Initially I suggest we just hardcode specific category for the planner 
backlog UI - but over time
the intent is that you in the process def can list what kind of UI views 
you'll want and those
UI views would look up via the category what types would be the 
focus/root of its view.

But for "crawl", just have a way to categorize types with a specific 
hardcoded category the UI will use.

/max

>
> On 25 January 2017 at 09:54, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 24 January 2017 at 16:56, Max Rydahl Andersen 
>> <manderse 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think of it as the root work item type in the tree of work item 
>>> type
>>> parent-child relationships.
>>>
>>> That's quite verbose, so I would suggest shortening to something 
>>> like
>>> "root work item type".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think root item is too limiting, at least if we expect to be able 
>>> to
>>> capture both PDD items (vision, experiences, value props, etc.) and 
>>> scrum
>>> items (epic, story, tasks) in the same Space.
>>>
>>> Here there will be either one root (Vision) very high up or two 
>>> roots
>>> Vision and Epic.
>>>
>>> I think we are better of very early on to introduce a way to 
>>> categorize
>>> types, i.e. "Epic" are of category "backlog planning hierarchy" 
>>> which the
>>> backlog ui will use for the root of its queries....
>>>
>>
>> I think we're saying the same thing, I'm just saying that you mark 
>> certain
>> types as root types, you're saying we mark a category of things root 
>> type.
>> Both seem fine approaches to me.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> almighty-public mailing list
>>>> almighty-public at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> almighty-public mailing list
>>> almighty-public at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>>
>>>
>>

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20170125/abc60264/attachment.htm>