Tim Williams wrote:
> If you're talking about "strategy" then I don't think JIRA is the
> right tool for the job. Ideally I suppose one might use the "version"
> filter to get an idea of what each version will contain, but frankly,
> as one who looks at our JIRA quite often, I am overwhelmed by it and
> am unable to see the forrest;) for the trees [or issues].
I have my doubts also.
> The page, http://forrest.apache.org/forrest-issues.html doesn't help
> me either. I think what we need is a separate "Roadmap" document. Not
> to duplicate JIRA stuff but to provide them in a higher,
> "feature"-level view rather than the granular, issue-level view that
> we currently have. I think this could help us in a few ways:
> 1) It would allow devs to "know" what other devs are working -- not to
> hold them accountable, just so that we know if someone has actually
> picked up the ball and ran with certain features. For example, I
> didn't follow it that closely but the "interactive Forrest" menu was
> discussed but we've don't really know (or i don't) if someone has
> taken it up or not.
+1
> 2) It would provide our users with a good idea of where we're heading.
> This allows them to make better decisions on whether to use Forrest or
> now (e.g., oh, i can see they're planning on getting this
> functionality that I need in the next version, great). And it allows
> them to provide input if there's a feature that they really need.
+1
> 3) It would give us a standard way of documenting some of the
> "strategic" discussions that happen on the list. Then after each
> release we could have a couple threads that revise the roadmap as
> needed for the next release based on itches at the time.
+1
How about some simple xml-schema to support maintaining that
documentation and a transformer to display that in various ways ...
> 4) It would answer a question I've been having lately -- how do we
> know when 0.8, 0.9, etc. is "done" and ready for release? Having a
> feature list would allow us to check off sets of features, thus
> knowing that we're ready for release when all of the issues associated
> with the features are resolved. (i suppose there's an implicit or
> explicity mapping between features and jira issues)
Well this seems a bit different from the approach taken in the past,
but I'd welcome it nevertheless.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
