OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oslc-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Proposed ordering of the backlog AND 3 issues to be added to the agenda

I am OK with the consequence no. 3, I think we can work around the consequence no. 1 with generation of new labels but the second one is quite important for me. 

For the no. 1, here is an example. For OSLCCORE-53 we just create a GH issues with the label "prio/major". Then I can filter GH issues instead of sorting them. For the no. 2, we can have a hack of adding a year label, e.g. OSLCCORE-53 would get "from/2015", which would be suboptimal but I can work with that.

Having said that, I would suggest to reconsider the swift migration of the issues to Github. I know I sound like an old man, but Jira seems to work for our needs and the bottleneck there is not the technology but the speed with which the TC is working through that backlog. We don't have such a big amount of code commits that make a tight integration of git commits and issues imperative. So, if it's ain't broke...

Also, Jim, I think we should make sure each migrated GH issue has a link at the bottom that looks like this:

Migrated from OSLCCORE-53.


On 2018-11-15 , at 17:25, Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com> wrote:

But let's not do this until we get the issues migrated to GitHub. We should consider current JIRA frozen as I have taken an export of all 188 issues for the purpose of doing the conversion to GitHub.

This unfortunately will change Andrew's proposal since:
1. GitHub issues don't have priority
2. The creation date will be the date of the migration not the original creation date, I can't change that property
3. GitHub only has open and closed issues (no New)

Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data

From:        Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@kth.se>
To:        OSLC Core TC <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        11/15/2018 11:14 AM
Subject:        [oslc-core] Proposed ordering of the backlog AND 3 issues to be added to the agenda
Sent by:        <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

As I said in the meeting, I propose to take 5 most relevant issues and to put them onto the TC agenda every meeting no matter what (we can agree to reduce the number of those issues if there are many agenda items otherwise). This is the only way I see us working through that list.

The question raised by Jim and others is what does constitute a good ordering of relevance. Here is the filter I use:


It features the following:

1) Primary sort by descending priority (deal with pressing matters first)
2) Secondary sort by the ascending creation date (deal with the oldest issues first if the priority is equal)
3) Restrict the list only to the New and Open issues
4) Restrict the list only to the top-level issues (filter out the subtasks)

If we have an agreement on that, here is the list of the issues for the next meeting (we already have 2 items on the agenda):


Unless we can reproduce the same sorting features on Github, I would suggest to keep using Jira until we work through this backlog.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]