Next steps of the trac-to-maniphest migration?

[Matthew Pickering]

I discovered today that it is now possible to create custom dashboards
for a project and make it the default view. This could be useful for
projects which have a lot of associated queries or we want some more
fine grained control about how the page looks.

Matt

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 14:09, Matthew Pickering <matthewtpickering at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Can we have custom fields with Maniphest?  I like the rich metadata we
>> > have
>> > with OS / Architecture / Component / Failure types.  It's true that we
>> > don't
>> > use it consistently, but at least when we do use it there's an obvious
>> > and
>> > standard way to do it.  When I search for RTS bugs I know that at least
>> > all
>> > the bugs I'm seeing are RTS bugs, even if I'm not seeing all the RTS
>> > bugs.
>> > People responsible for particular architectures can keep their metadata
>> > up
>> > to date to make it easier to manage their ticket lists.
>>
>> There was a long discussion about this on the original thread with
>> people echoing this sentiment. I am of the opinion that projects would
>> be a better fit as
>>
>> 1. They integrate better with the rest of phabricator
>> 2. They are not relevant to every ticket. There are tickets about
>> infrastructure matters for which the concept of OS is irrelevant for
>> example.
>>
>> I like to think of projects as structured unstructured metadata.
>> The structure is that you
>> can group different project tags together as subprojects of a parent
>> project but adding projects to a ticket is unstructured.
>> This is how "architecture" is implemented currently -
>>
>> http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/project/view/101/
>> On trac, keywords are not very useful as they are completely
>> unstructured and not discoverable. I think projects greatly improve on
>> this.
>
>
> I think the problem here is that it's not obvious which projects should be
> added to tickets.  As a ticket submitter, if I have metadata I'm not likely
> to add it, and as developers we'll probably forget which fields we could
> add.
>
> Yes, Trac keywords are even more useless.  But we don't generally use
> keywords; the point here is about the other metadata fields (OS,
> Architecture, etc.).  Just having some text on the ticket creation page to
> suggest adding OS / Architecture would help a lot.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>