Re: Unique project names

--- On Thu, 12/2/09, Glenn Henshaw <thraxisp-3kkvZBxzQh2+Mgy9Xt2BoPd9D2ou9A/[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Glenn Henshaw <thraxisp-3kkvZBxzQh2+Mgy9Xt2BoPd9D2ou9A/[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [mantisbt-help] Unique project names
> To: "Help with Mantis" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, 12 February, 2009, 9:06 PM
> On 12-Feb-09, at 1:03 PM, John Reese wrote:
> 
> > On 02/12/2009 11:55 AM, Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> >> Can anyone shed any light on why sub-projects have
> to be unique over the
> >> whole of mantis? This is causing us some problems
> as we have several
> >> quite level areas, then within this we have areas
> of responsibility and
> >> again within this categories.
> >> 
> >> It is proving troublesome to have different names
> for the same things..
> >> in slightly different areas.
> > 
> > Perhaps it would be useful to know that you can link a
> project as
> > sub-project to multiple main projects.
> > 
> > Eg:
> >   Create three projects: A, B, and C
> >   Set C as a sub-project of A
> >   Set C as a sub-project of B
> > 
> >   Resulting hierarchy:
> > 
> >      A   B
> >       \ /
> >        C
> 
>   This was the original intent when the feature was added.
> This would allow common code to show up in the bug lists for
> multiple projects. It was also done to allow private
> projects (with different teams) to be aggregated by
> managers.
> 
>   From your description, you probably want to use
> categories, not subprojects.
> 
> 

I suspect we are using the systems in the wrong way or our process is strange but we are going from a home grown system to mantis, and I am trying to arrange abit of 'meeting in the middle' betwen what 'we' do, and what 'others' seem to do.

We basically have a product that is made up of several subprojects each with their own product mangers etc etc. We need categories at this level because each sub-product has areas as you might expect so we have

Products
->Our Product
  ->Area 1
  ->Area 2
->Another product
  -> Area 1
  -> Area 2

This is all fine and can mostly do what we want within this frame work. But what we also have is a 'system test' area that ideally will mimic the above layout - hence the collision on project names. We want to be able to do it though so we can maintain the product leaders and just 'move' a fault into the system test area that has different version numbers etc. Mangers will be kept aware of what is going on because their 'own' the projects in both cases. We can frig the naming calling it 'SysTest-Our product' but if we have multiple system test cycles going it they want to separate the issues out.

Does this make it clearer what we are trying to do? I know we can use versions in this arena to some extent but like i say it is meeting the middle I am trying to achieve.


-----------------------
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: [email protected]
'..Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.'
-----------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H