From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: org-jira.el... and Org conventions (Bastien, Carsten and all) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:07:49 +0100 Message-ID: <80ipkt6wfe.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <86hb0ez4qr.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Bao, "Bao Haojun" wrote: > I have implemented org-jira.el, bringing org-mode and Jira system > together. > > Wrote a Wiki page for it on emacswiki: > http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/OrgJiraMode > > Hope somebody find it useful, if he/she is also using Jira and loves > org-mode. I had never heard of Jira, but your work definitely looks very promising. IMHO, it should be compared with org-x and its extension to Redmine, among others. But this triggers, for me, another "concern" which is the very wide variety of ways to define the same thing. Let's just take how we represent who's gonna be assigned a task: - In most examples we see on the Net (or in the Org manual), people use tags with person names (or abbreviations). - In your case, you mirror what's done in Jira (I guess) and you introduce a property "Assignee". - In Org issues (http://orgmode.org/worg/org-issues.html), some tasks are given a property "Who" to indicate who has to work on them. - In tasks used for interacting with TaskJuggler, one uses a "Resource-Id" property. - Still another approach is used by Juan Reyero in his advertised "Org-mode tricks for team management" (see [1]), using a combination of TODO todo keywords for his own tasks, and TASK keywords for tasks assigned to members of his team. All of this makes it hard to have one independent Org file, and be able to cooperate with external tools (like Jira, Redmine, TaskJuggler and others) on a "on demand" approach. You want a Gantt chart? You need to add (or rename) "Resource-Id" properties. Now, you would like a Web-based Bug Tracking system? Too bad: you need to add (or rename) properties "Assignee" or ... So, my point is: wouldn't it be better if we proposed standard properties in Org (in the manual), and implemented mappings in the Org "integration" packages (org-jira, org-taskjuggler, org-redmine and the like)? So, say for example that, from now on, it's more standard in Org to use "Assignee" (or anything else) for representing who's assigned a task, and have every package map the property "Assignee" to whatever keyword used in external tools for representing that concept? If we do such, - we _do not impose anything_ (everybody is still free to represent this task the way he wants, be it properties or tags) - we ensure an easy transition to use any external tool for those that used the "to be defined" standard properties. Best regards, Seb Footnotes: [1] http://juanreyero.com/article/emacs/org-teams.html -- Sebastien Vauban