[BEP-0006] Ticket relations

[Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I created an initial draft for BEP-0006: Ticket Relations[1] to continue this discussion.
It doesn't currently contain any implementation details, as the feature requirements haven't
been finalized yet.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0006

-- 
matevz


On 4. Feb, 2013, at 6:21, Ryan Ollos wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si> wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> 3. Based on 1 and 2 we can decide which plugin to use (presence
>> or absence of multiproduct awareness
>> requirement together with author's willingness to provide it, will
>> probably be one of the key decision making factors)
>> 
> 
> (1) and (2) sound fine. Regarding (3):
> 
> The SubticketsPlugin provides parent-child relations. The
> MasterTicketsPlugin provides blocker-blocked relations. I worked up a few
> patches for the SubticketsPlugin and they were never integrated by the
> author so I moved on.
> 
> I'm maintaining the MasterTicketsPlugin now and I was working on adding
> parent-child relations support as well. I lost a few patches in my working
> copy when my VM became corrupt earlier this month, but I'll work to get
> those recreated and push out a new version of MasterTicketsPlugin that has
> some critical fixes and parent-child relation support. I see no problem
> with adding multi-product awareness to the plugin in a way similar to what
> Olemis did for TracPastePlugin.

Re: [BEP-0006] Ticket relations

[Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:

> [...]
> With my user hat on: I disagree. IMO it's better to have different
> relation types than to confuse the meaning of "dependency" or "child".
> E.g., Jira as "is-related-to" for this purpose, and also differentiates
> between "depends-on" and "is-blocked-by".
>

That sounds reasonable. I incorporated the suggestions as clarifications in
the BEP.

Re: [BEP-0006] Ticket relations

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 11.02.2013 15:43, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> Constraints that are implemented by the current plugins are "parent
> can't be closed if one or more child tickets is open", "blocker can't
> be closed if a dependency is open". These could be even be implemented
> as options for the user defining the relations.

With my user hat on: I disagree. IMO it's better to have different
relation types than to confuse the meaning of "dependency" or "child".
E.g., Jira as "is-related-to" for this purpose, and also differentiates
between "depends-on" and "is-blocked-by".

-- Brane


-- 
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com

Re: [BEP-0006] Ticket relations

[Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I created an initial draft for BEP-0006: Ticket Relations[1] to continue
> this discussion.
> It doesn't currently contain any implementation details, as the feature
> requirements haven't
> been finalized yet.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0006
>
> --
> matevz
>

It looks great, thanks for moving this forward. We may want to consider
implementing graph visualization in the user interface. MasterTickets and
ChildTicketsPlugin currently have this, though we could probably provide a
more impressive and dynamic presentation than they provide.

Constraints that are implemented by the current plugins are "parent can't
be closed if one or more child tickets is open", "blocker can't be closed
if a dependency is open". These could be even be implemented as options for
the user defining the relations.

- Ryan