On 30.12.11 23:53 , Dr. Trigon wrote:
While you are mentioning this (btw. thanks for this) - I had contact to other people e.g. on dewiki which do also complain about JIRA no beeing user friendly and so on - this should may be considered... But I am not aware of how many low-level-users (regarding programming skills) are actually reporting e.g. interwiki bot errors...
Hmm, did they say in what way it was not user friendly?
I have limited experience with it but only good. I have found it easier to use and more robust than bugzilla, though not necessarily an easy switch. I can see how a wikimedia editor who just wants to report a bug might find it overwhelming and full use of sub-tasks and components and the work flow and work history tools requires reading the documentation for all but the most intuitive, but I didn't find filing a bug difficult (and I'm almost certainly in your "low-level-users" at least as regards any programming skill - though I am experienced with work flow and project management concepts).
It seems well documented and easily linkable, not to mention it can be tied directly to TS FishEye so I think we could easily post patches and new proposed scripts to FishEye with complete back and forth linking to the issues they go with on JIRA. This would then allow users, even those who don't have commit access, to post their version controlled code where others could tweak it, before it's committed to the wikimedia svn.
Unlike either our current system or bugzilla, projects can be divided into different "components" and issues can overlap. As far as I can tell there is no need for junk like tracker bugs or keywords, though it does have "labels" which are like keywords.
Valhallasw said he has a script to move the bugs with but maybe we could try it out first without moving everything over.
TS-wiki (also integrated with JIRA/FishEye) is also available should we need it for a more static tracking of plans. Though of course, moving to JIRA does not mean we have to make use of TS-wiki or even FishEye.
Doug