I've always used "enhancement" for this purpose -- does phabricator actually support this?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to recommend a naming convention that clearly differentiates > between existing and wanted behavior. This is something that has been > confusing for me for a while - bugs and tasks are both in the indicative so > I often have trouble deciding whether a ticket describes a situation that > exists but should not or one that does not exist but should. > > Random example from current sprint board: "Anon users can access public > view from main menu" with the associated description being "When anonymous > and I click collections I am taken to the public view." Does this mean that > anonymous users should not be able to access the public view but somehow > they can, or is this the description of a wanted feature? I can figure it > out by digging up context, of course, but that takes time; ideally, this > should be clear from just the task title (which I might be seeing in a list > or on a workboard). > > I think it would be clearer if the title of the task would always > reflected the situation at the time of creating the task, and titles > describing a wanted but not currently existing state were phrased as > imperatives. So if anons can see the public view right now and that's a bug > the title would say "anons can access public view"; if they cannot access > it currently but that's a feature we want, the title would say "anons > should be able to access public view" or "make anons able to access public > view". > > Thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l > >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
