A topic raised recently in a retrospective brought to light the fact that there are some features missing in GH Issues, which are implemented in other issue trackers.
* improving notifications of new issues by component (eg., Che server or Che dashboard) or by team/area label
* improving triage by assigning new issues to team leads instead of via round-robin by non-SMEs
* improving metadata (milestones, new¬eworthy, severity, priority) set on issues, to make it easier to do project/product releases
* reducing manual steps involved in triage, prioritization, sprint planning, and handling of unplanned urgent issues
* querying for issues closed across multiple milestones, labels, and/or team assignees
* identifying resolved issues (fix is merged) vs. verified issues (fix exists in a built binary and has been tested to work)
Here's a quick comparison of how some of the above concerns might be met by using a more feature-rich tracker:
Maybe it's time to consider using a different tool? If the Eclipse Foundation can move from bugzilla and gerrit to gitlab, maybe we could consider continuing to use Github for pull requests and code, but try JIRA for its project management features? We already centralized all issues into a single tracker -- could we take it to the next level?
What do other community members think of this idea? Any technical reasons why this couldn't work?
;)
--
Nick Boldt
Principal Software Engineer, RHCSA
Productization Lead :: CodeReady Workspaces
IM: @nickboldt / @nboldt / http://nick.divbyzero.com
“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change” - Heraclitus
