I echo these comments made above:
If I may be so bold, this is a case of knowing your customers, a large proportion of whom will be Engineers and thus able to handle cognitive complexity quite easily. Jira isn't - and shouldn't try to be - Trello. Henry S
Personally, I create versions in JIRA which include the component name. Tamsin Slinn
Making a software easier to use don't mean less functionality. Florian Rubin
We have a lot of projects wherein components are clearly delineated between front-end (mobile app) and back-end (API). We require separate release tracking for them because the release process differs so substantially (app store vs bamboo deployment plan). We're already abusing version numbers by inserting the component names into them. It's cumbersome and difficult to plan releases that need to happen in lockstep (e.g., breaking changes that require semver-major bumps).
Since JIRA has been segmented into JIRA Core and JIRA Software, I expect Atlassian to better serve their engineering customers with JIRA Software. Imbuing a piece of enterprise software with new features is something we expect. We want more functionality; not less. Quite frankly, Dave Meyer's message reads as an excuse. "It adds a modicum of complexity and raises a number of other issues with respect to user interface we have to think through, so we're going to take the easy way out and not do it."
It's become the norm for Atlassian. They deliberately dumb down their software in order to reach a broader audience to boost their sales. Good for them, but it leaves loyal customers like us out in the cold. We pay Atlassian for an enterprise solution for managing complex software projects. Why should we continue to pay for annual maintenance when Atlassian never improves the feature set?