I mean the actual Atlassian product Confluence. I have no experience w/
the java.net wiki (I take it is not Confluence?)
Les
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you mean Confluence or the (also somewhat constrained) Java.net wiki?;-)
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Les Hazlewood <les_at_stormpath.com> wrote:
>
>> We use Jira extensively at work and we're an agile shop (Kanban
>> specifically). While it does quite well w/ stories and epics, even that
>> level is still somewhat constrained: I can't look at the big picture as
>> easily as a summary wiki page that can represent all things in a glance,
>> where groupings and sub-groupings are visually easy to grok w/ indentation,
>> color, etc (not so w/ Jira summary views where everything is a a row).
>> Final specs (e.g. Servlet spec) also serve this purpose: you can see what
>> is in scope, what is nested detail and what is out of scope - all in a
>> single glance.
>>
>> I'm fully willing that this could just be my mental model and how I think
>> about information management, and if no-one else finds what I'm talking
>> about as beneficial, I'll be fine :) Maybe I'll give a crack at forming
>> this page for my own mental model and see if anyone else finds it
>> beneficial. If not, we can kill it for sure.
>>
>> I don't suppose there is a Confluence distribution we have access to?
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Leaving aside some realy "big gun" systems like IBM Doors (which the
>>> client's infrastructure mandated) I've seen JIRA used quite well to define
>>> and estimate stories.
>>> If you haven't looked at JIRA 5 or 6 java.net provides, both "Story"
>>> and "epic" are there (same with the clients who use it for full scale Agile
>>> planning and estimation)
>>>
>>> That's the idea, not to create bugs or improvements (I don't think "new
>>> feature" is actually offered but maybe it depends on how the java.net
>>> project is set up there)
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Les Hazlewood <les_at_stormpath.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Les Hazlewood <les_at_stormpath.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Where is discussion of design and features to be done? I see many
>>>>> Jira
>>>>> > issues (presumably that are up for discussion), and
>>>>> thoughts/concepts in
>>>>> > emails. Should we discuss as Jira comments? Or email thread posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> The way that the process is mostly carried out in the other EGs is
>>>>> that JIRA issues are created, which are then discussed on the EG
>>>>> mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think creating Jira issues before a high level outline or 'epics' or
>>>> 'stories' (or 'topics' and 'sub topics') are defined is backwards.
>>>> Shouldn't we all be on the same page and have an understanding of the
>>>> higher level picture and (general) topics/sub-topics before we go debating
>>>> specific features and tasks? The JSR is a good start, but too high level,
>>>> and Jira issues are too low level (IMHO). More, they are myopic: when
>>>> looking at a single jira issue, I can't see how it relates to other issues,
>>>> where it aligns with other issues in its 'category', or where it fits in
>>>> the general scheme of things.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Jira is an issue tracker - it is marginal at best for
>>>> feature management (whereas, Confluence - as just one of many examples - is
>>>> better for that).
>>>>
>>>> My .02,
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>