On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd@gmail.com> 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/project/view/101/
On trac, keywords are not very useful as they are completely
unstructured and not discoverable. I think projects greatly improve on
this.