Re: org-jira.el... and Org conventions (Bastien, Carsten and all)

["Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf-geNee64TY+gS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Bao,

"Bao Haojun" wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf-geNee64TY+gS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org> writes:
>> "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.
>
> Thanks for the praise! Jira is a "commercial" issue tracker, but it also
> seems to be OSS friendly (by allowing OSS community to use the software for
> free; Apache is using it, see http://wiki.apache.org/general/ApacheJira).
>
> Likewise I had not heard of org-x and Redmine, thanks for letting me know.
>
>> But this triggers, for me, another "concern" which is the very wide variety
>> of ways to define the same thing.
>>
>> 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?
>
> I can see your point, that standard thing is good, if it's already here, I
> will definitely try comply to them.

Thanks for your proposition.

I will let others express their own meaning, but, seeing your answer, I wanted
to recalibrate what I expressed.

> But your worrying people need to transition from one system such as org-jira
> to another such as org-x, I think they are not very often. Because if it
> happens, it would mean that the COMPANY/COMMUNITY has decided to switch from
> Jira to Redmine, can you imagine how often that can be?
>
> Besides, even if that really happens, it would also mean the
> COMPANY/COMMUNITY has got a way to transition from Jira to Redmine, so there
> would have already been a way to transit from org-jira to org-x: org-jira ->
> Jira -> Redmine -> org-x (and vice versa).
>
> So my point is, if someone try to make transition easy, they should do it on
> the company level, such as from Jira to Redmine. Org mode feels kind of
> personal to me, and I feel good enough to be able to sync between company
> issue tracking system and my org-mode, no need for it to be able to transit
> to another issue tracking system's org-mode.

You're right we could understand my proposition as being an easier way to
change between bug tracking systems. But not only that.

I gave the example of Task Juggler: wouldn't it be nice to be able -- at any
point in time -- to generate a dependency graph through Task Juggler, while
being able (at the same time, without touching anything) to get the tasks
maintained in, let's say, Redmine (which does not offer a Gantt chart
functionality IIRC)?

So, the question is not really about switching from one system to another, but
more about using 2 (or more) systems in parallel... While the former may be a
rare occurrence in a project, I guess the latter is more a common wish.

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban