Hi,
another approach would be to utilize different Jira issue types (and
in particular sub-tasks) for this.
High-level issues (typically a complete functionality, bug report
etc.) would be represented by top-level issue types ("New Feature",
"Bug" etc.) while fine-granular tasks (the "to do" gran
On Mar 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Another though occurred to me is that one of the really nice things about
> Jira is keeping track of my todos. If I am working on some piece of code and
> realize I need to do some work it is much nicer to create a Jira rather than
> (a) add
Another though occurred to me is that one of the really nice things about
Jira is keeping track of my todos. If I am working on some piece of code
and realize I need to do some work it is much nicer to create a Jira rather
than (a) adding a todo comment or (b) getting side-tracked from my current
t
For the this metamodel work, you have a very valid point. But taken to
the extreme, not really sure average users care about the details of
this beyond a single catch all "redesign metamodel". There is
obviously a balance here. Also, keep in mind that there is just
inherently a difference in
Hi,
I noticed that recently we create a lot of "micro" jira issues (just as an
example "missing ; in class xyz").
Most issues are related to the current metamodel work. I am wondering how
useful that is?
The metamodel is under heavy development and I think liras should stay on a
functional lev
