[almighty] Clarification around Types

Wed Jan 25 13:20:27 UTC 2017

Please note that's it is reasonable to view a tree of work-items from
different 'roots', even when those roots are actually intermediate nodes.

E.g, I've got Epics -> Features -> User Stories -> Tasks, and I want to
view a backlog rooted at Feature F3. I just want to make sure we are not
proposing an implementation which prohibits this.

But, yes, a process template should be able to indicate which work item
types are used to drive the default backlog and board views -- which types
to show, which columns are in the board, how states map to those columns,
etc. We'll iterate on those capabilities, so don't think we need to be able
to do all of it day 1. But do view the process template as a fairly
flexible set of data which can inform the extensions of the system during a
"New Space" event.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse at redhat.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> almighty-public mailing list
> almighty-public at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20170125/e876b3d9/attachment.htm>