Call for features

[gene]

Tip: There is a German version of this thread.

For quiet some time now we are collecting details about our ideas for a "perfect" game database. These ideas are spread around the whole discussion forum.

This made me thought about the question: How can we write down these features in a better, more structured way?

What is a "feature"? Here are some things that come to my mind:

• a part of the data model: what data can exactly be saved/read?
• a function of the oregami web site, e.g. "search for a game via the title" or "display a list of games that are released in the year 1989" or "log in with user/password".
• a function of the API for external use, e.g. "make a JavaScript snippet available to create a forum signature for a user"
• "non-functional" things like "The Oregami website should display responsive on mobile devices"
• things like "the whole game data should be downloadable in format X"
• anything else that you want so see or do at Oregami

How can we collect these features? What do we do with them once they are written down?
I suggest we use our Jira installation to manage our features. You can create them, then they can be discussed, the Oregami community can agree approve them or reject them. Jira supports such workflows, I created on for this purpuse that looks like this:

(needs some extension with respect to implementing a feature)

Another things that Jira supports perfectly is the categorization of issues. I created a list of so called components in Jira, take a look at it. It's just a start, feel free to make suggestions to modify/extend this list. By using it we will be able to list features for these components very easily, makes much sense when this list grows.

I created an example issue for the user login. This should make things better understandable.

Also take a look at the wiki page Call for features, which we can use to communicate this process with the rest of the world (instead of this thread).

What do you think about this idea? Will you help us with it?

[Katakis]

I already contributed two suggestions - the video tutorial and the edit. I was going to create another one concerning walkthroughs, but I don't think this would be appropriate. Besides, I gave some good suggestions to MZ earlier.

[gene]

I already contributed two suggestions - the video tutorial and the edit..

That's great,thank you!
Keep it coming ,
I was hoping to collect every single "feature" as a Jira Ticket, so don't hesitate to add more features.

was going to create another one concerning walkthroughs, but I don't think this would be appropriate. Besides, I gave some good suggestions to MZ earlier.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate? We would like to collect every wanted feature, the basic ones as well as the fancy ones.

[Katakis]

Added a heap of features, but that's all I can think of right now.

[MZ per X]

gene, how do we handle bigger features?

Do we do an umbrella issue with sub-issues for the details, or every detail in its own issue?

[gene]

gene, how do we handle bigger features?
Do we do an umbrella issue with sub-issues for the details, or every detail in its own issue?

I think we should try to seperate it in multiple "leightweight" features. Not one big.
Have in mind that we will try to implement the features "step by step", so multiple smaller tickets would match better.

Would that be ok for you?
Perhaps we should try it with an example?

[Katakis]

Oops, I filed the King's Quest RGs/Rs page under the "Monkey Island Series".
gene, there is already a "King's Quest series" page. Since you are an admin, could you please move the sub-page here.

[gene]

Since you are an admin, could you please move the sub-page here.

You should be able to move it yourself!
On the top right, klick "Tools => Show in Hierarchy" and wait a moment for the page tree to be loaded.
Then you can drag & drop your page to the correct parent page.

If it doesn't work, tell me about it.

[MZ per X]

I think we should try to seperate it in multiple "leightweight" features. Not one big. Have in mind that we will try to implement the features "step by step", so multiple smaller tickets would match better.

Yes, we should, but how do we do it in Jira, technically?

Perhaps we should try it with an example?

I hope that my brain-draining work cycle ends this week, so I can join the fun.

[MZ per X]

I think we should try to seperate it in multiple "leightweight" features. Not one big. Have in mind that we will try to implement the features "step by step", so multiple smaller tickets would match better.

Yes, we should, but how do we do it in Jira, technically?

Still wondering, I took a closer look now.

I think we should create meta issues for the bigger features, like Glenn exemplary did for walkthroughs. We can discuss the meta feature there, and after its acceptance can split it up into smallish sub-issues. The meta issue shall then depend on the sub-issues.

Will try this within Jira.

[MZ per X]

So I did some work in Jira for walkthroughs and reviews. Please comment.

I am not able to insert blocking issues into an issue, like I can do in a task. gene, can we enable that?

[gene]

I am not able to insert blocking issues into an issue, like I can do in a task. gene, can we enable that?

What exactly do you mean with "insert blocking issues into an issue"

[MZ per X]

What exactly do you mean with "insert blocking issues into an issue"

I mean that one issue blocks another issue, i. e. the latter can't be closed before the blocking issue is closed.

[gene]

What exactly do you mean with "insert blocking issues into an issue"

I mean that one issue blocks another issue, i. e. the latter can't be closed before the blocking issue is closed.

Ah, ok.
I am afraid that this is not possible, at least not automatically without some effort.
What we can do is to "link" two issues. So the (human) reader can see e.g. that OW-31 "Integration of pictures into user reviews" is blocked by OW-30 "Basic integration of user reviews" . You can do this by klicking on "More" and then on "Link", I did it for OW-31, take a look at it. But this does not prevent us from closing the blocked issue first nevertheless. But I gues it's better than nothing!?

[MZ per X]

But I gues it's better than nothing!?

It is, indeed.

I will do it this way, then, thanks for your JIRA research.