Next steps of the trac-to-maniphest migration?
matthewtpickering at gmail.com
Sun Jan 29 23:35:57 UTC 2017
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.
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>
>> 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
>> 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 -
>> On trac, keywords are not very useful as they are completely
>> unstructured and not discoverable. I think projects greatly improve on
> 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
> 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.
More information about the ghc-devs