Subject: Enhancements as opposed to bugs

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:10:04 +0800

We always seem to have lots of enhancements logged as bugs in the Mir 
project. And we seem to have a requirement that many of them be more 
important than "Wishlist" which is what LP historically uses to 
represent enhancements.

So assuming we can't convince everyone that all enhancements should be 
Importance==Wishlist, how about some other formal approach?

Maybe prefix all enhancements as "[enhancement]" ?

- Daniel

---

From: Kevin Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:01:05 -0500

Something that I have not pushed very hard but is something I prefer is to
place features in relevant blueprints and keep bugs as bugs.

I haven't pushed the blueprint vs bug mainly because the team has been both
responsive to correctly followup and responsible in understanding the
difference. And people do track bugs very well whereas blueprints are less
adopted in that sense of continuous followup.

What do you think of using blueprints for bugs-which-are-really-features ?

I don't mind leaving the bug open as "wishlist" & linking it.
i will say, having a feature on a blueprint is a great way for it not to be
overlooked/forgotten/lost with respect to roadmap planning.

br,kg

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Daniel van Vugt <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> important than "Wishlist" which is what LP historically uses to represent
> enhancements.
>
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/mir-devel<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>

---

From: Michał Sawicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:47:04 +0200

> What do you think of using blueprints for bugs-which-are-really-features ?

I believe the biggest issue here for us is ubuntu-ux's process of 
design-related bugs.

On top of that, bugs allow you to link multiple related projects 
together, which blueprints lack somewhat.

-- 
Michał (Saviq) Sawicz <[email-masked]>
Canonical Services Ltd.

---

From: Daniel d'Andrada <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:04:32 -0300

> What do you think of using blueprints for bugs-which-are-really-features ?

Bugs and new features are, on a slighly higher level, the same thing: 
work that has to be done on some piece of software, according to some 
specs, with a target milestone, an assignee, a given priority, a state 
(in progress, new, commited, released), a discussion around it, etc.

At my previous job we had different systems for those (bugs and 
features) for a long time and it was awesome when we finally started 
using only one (the bug tracker, but tweaked a bit to better accommodate 
those two kinds of tasks) for everything. I think it's just natural to 
do so.

- Daniel

---

From: Michał Sawicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:09:37 +0200

> those two kinds of tasks) for everything. I think it's just natural to

I believe the biggest problem with launchpad in that regard is that 
"Wishlist" is the lowest priority (Importance) level. You can't make an 
enhancement higher priority than a bug, that's why some clear 
distinguishing between a bug and a feature would be nice indeed.

---

From: Daniel d'Andrada <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:13:51 -0300

On 15/10/13 11:09, Michał Sawicz wrote:
> "Wishlist" is the lowest priority (Importance) level. You can't make 
> an enhancement higher priority than a bug, that's why some clear 

That's because you're mapping a feature to a priority level, which is 
wrong. A bug could have a "Wishlist" priority-level just as well as a 
feature could be at a "High" priority level.

---

From: Michał Sawicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:46:36 +0200

> feature could be at a "High" priority level.

Not me - launchpad does...

---

From: Alan Griffiths <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:55:24 +0100

On 15/10/13 14:01, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> Something that I have not pushed very hard but is something I prefer
> is to place features in relevant blueprints and keep bugs as bugs.

In managing the backlog bugs vs features isn't the most useful
distinction and is given far too much prominance in launchpad. They are
both sources of work and either could be planned/reactive,
urgent/non-urgent, important/unimportant, approved/unapproved.

I prefer to have everything in one place - but launchpad isn't great at
managing the many dimensions of work either as bugs or as blueprints.

---

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:28:54 +0800

I think we all agree Launchpad does not represent enhancement/feature 
requests ideally. That's why I asked how we'd like to work around the 
shortcomings.

Also, I just found the bug (which itself is actually a feature request) 
and it looks unlikely to be resolved:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431

---

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:10:10 +0800

Though I recall some of the proprietary issue tracking systems I've used 
in the past clearly distinguished between Bug and Enhancement.

And that in itself was sometimes problematic. Where people can't decide 
or agree if something is a bug or a feature, you either need a third 
classification or a more neutral system that just doesn't care (like 
Launchpad).

---

From: Kevin Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:02:15 -0500

thanks for the feedback.
it likely won't be something to be fixed in a short term - but i agree,
bugs (over blueprints) seem closer to being 'everything' you'd want when
looking at the vices & virtues of bugs vs blueprints.
i think what bugs are missing is a bit of aggregation & reporting ...as
well as a way to better reflect scheduling (for a big picture view)

in the near term - there is certainly nothing wrong with pre-pending to the
bug title...i would suggest "[ER]" for 'enhancement request'...

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Daniel van Vugt <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> And that in itself was sometimes problematic. Where people can't decide or
> agree if something is a bug or a feature, you either need a third
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/**launchpad/+bug/176431<https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431>
>>
>>

---

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:03:54 +0800

I don't think "[ER]" is very user-friendly. No one outside the team 
would understand it.

How about "[feature]" or "[enhancement]"?

On 16/10/13 21:02, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> in the near term - there is certainly nothing wrong with pre-pending to
> the bug title...i would suggest "[ER]" for 'enhancement request'...
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Daniel van Vugt
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
>
>     Though I recall some of the proprietary issue tracking systems I've
>     used in the past clearly distinguished between Bug and Enhancement.
>
>     And that in itself was sometimes problematic. Where people can't
>     decide or agree if something is a bug or a feature, you either need
>     a third classification or a more neutral system that just doesn't
>     care (like Launchpad).
>
>
>
>         https://bugs.launchpad.net/__launchpad/+bug/176431
>         <https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431>
>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/__mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>     <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Kevin Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:42:15 -0500

sure...pick it

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Daniel van Vugt <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't think "[ER]" is very user-friendly. No one outside the team would
> understand it.
>
>> <[email-masked] <mailto:daniel.van.vugt@**canonical.com<[email-masked]>
>> >>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>         https://bugs.launchpad.net/__**launchpad/+bug/176431<https://bugs.launchpad.net/__launchpad/+bug/176431>
>>
>>         <https://bugs.launchpad.net/**launchpad/+bug/176431<https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431>
>> >
>>
>>
>>     [email-masked] <mailto:Mir-devel@lists.**ubuntu.com<[email-masked]>
>> >
>>
>>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/__**mailman/listinfo/mir-devel<https://lists.ubuntu.com/__mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>>     <https://lists.ubuntu.com/**mailman/listinfo/mir-devel<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list

---

From: Daniel d'Andrada <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:01:58 -0300

I agree. Cryptic acronyms are bad.

Another ides is using tags, like suggested here 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431/comments/4. That would 
save us some precious space in the bug title.

---

From: Daniel van Vugt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:20:22 +0800

Well I tagged a bunch of bugs as [feature] yesterday and already ran 
into ambiguity in some (feature vs enhancement vs bug). I think 
[enhancement] is a better classification because not all enhancement 
requests represent distinct "features". Might switch them to 
[enhancement] today.