Re: Next steps of the trac-to-maniphest migration?

On 24 January 2017 at 14:09, Matthew Pickering wrote:

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Simon Marlow 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 example.

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 - http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/pr oject/view/101/ On trac, keywords are not very useful as they are completely unstructured and not discoverable. I think projects greatly improve on this.

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 add. 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. Cheers Simon