launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Bjorn Tillenius <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:02:11AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 07, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Tim Penhey wrote:
> 
> >> My hunch is that people are already using tags in an almost rigorous
> >> way to model this.
> >
> >Yes we do, but I think we should still look to add components at some stage.
> 
> I agree.  I don't think tags are actually the right fit for this, though
> they're the best we have right now.  Some things you could do once you have
> proper components:
> 
>  * auto-assign bugs in that component to a person/team for triage

It depends on what you mean with "auto-assign". I don't think the bug
should actually be assigned to someone, rather a team/person would be
responsible for a component, and would easily see which bugs he needs to
triage.


>  * get an overview of the general health or velocity of a component
>  * manage structural subscriptions on a component level

All what you say can be done using tags. For example, one thing we want
to do is to offer structural subscriptions for tags. Seeing the general
health or velocity for a tag would also be useful, and whan you have tag
subscriptions, the auto-assign kind of work (without actual setting the
assignee).

So, again, what value does adding yet another data structure add, rather
than to improve the way tags work?


> One of the reasons why I think project groups and projects doesn't work is
> because Launchpad isn't agile enough to let you narrow and widen your focus
> easily based on your task.  Components can help this if done right.  For
> example, sometimes I care about things project-wide, other times I care just
> about a particular component.  Sometimes I care about my own personal
> artifacts, other times I want to see a community-defined slice through them
> (e.g. tags).

You could substitute "component" with "tag" in the paragraph above, no?
Or rather "official tag", which aren't community defined.


> Using tags mixes too many orthogonal concepts together.  For example, it's
> kind of silly to have tags like mailing-lists, ui, and trivial.  They're great
> for letting community-driven organization emerge organically though.

Why is it silly? 'ui' I can understand, it's way way too broad, or at
least the way we've used it is silly, since it basically meant that a
bug needed some ui changes, which a lot of bugs do.




-- 
Björn Tillenius | https://launchpad.net/~bjornt