• 33
    • 25
    • Hide
      Atlassian Update – 3 September 2018

      Hi everyone,

      Thank you for your interest in this issue.

      While this suggestion has gathered significant interest, we're unable to implement all of the excellent suggestions you make. We don't plan to work on this for the foreseeable future. This suggestion will be reviewed in about 12 months time, at which point we’ll consider whether we need to alter its status. The change requires an architecture change that may negatively affect other product areas.

      After careful review of the most pressing needs of our customers, we've decided to prioritize other areas of the Jira Server roadmap, some of them including your highly voted suggestions:

      In the recent Jira Server releases we have shipped some highly-voted features and improvements, including:

      • Filters and dashboards collaborative editing
      • Selectable delimiters in CSV export 
      • Microsoft SQL Server 2016 support 
      • iPv6 support
      • Faster Kanban boards
      • Refreshed projects and custom fields management pages in the admin's section 

      We hope that you appreciate our candid and transparent communication. You can learn more about our approach to highly voted server suggestions here.

      To learn more on how you suggestions are reviewed, see our updated workflow for server feature suggestions.

      Kind regards,
      Katarzyna Derenda
      Product Manager, Jira Server

      Show
      Atlassian Update – 3 September 2018 Hi everyone, Thank you for your interest in this issue. While this suggestion has gathered significant interest, we're unable to implement all of the excellent suggestions you make. We don't plan to work on this for the foreseeable future. This suggestion will be reviewed in about 12 months time, at which point we’ll consider whether we need to alter its status. The change requires an architecture change that may negatively affect other product areas. After careful review of the most pressing needs of our customers, we've decided to prioritize other areas of the Jira Server roadmap, some of them including your highly voted suggestions: Further performance and stability improvements Adding the "updated-by" JQL search query  JRASERVER-1973 Support for 4 byte characters in MySQL connection  JRASERVER-36135 Jira email notifications batching  JRASERVER-1369 Mobile app for Jira Server  JRASERVER-46149 Email notifications template editor available from the UI  JRASERVER-7266 Improved filter and dashboard management by Jira administrators  JRASERVER-15900  and  JRASERVER-41269 In the recent Jira Server releases we have shipped some highly-voted features and improvements, including: Filters and dashboards collaborative editing Selectable delimiters in CSV export  Microsoft SQL Server 2016 support  iPv6 support Faster Kanban boards Refreshed projects and custom fields management pages in the admin's section  We hope that you appreciate our candid and transparent communication. You can learn more about our  approach to highly voted server suggestions here . To learn more on how you suggestions are reviewed, see our  updated workflow for server feature suggestions . Kind regards, Katarzyna Derenda Product Manager, Jira Server
    • We collect Jira feedback from various sources, and we evaluate what we've collected when planning our product roadmap. To understand how this piece of feedback will be reviewed, see our Implementation of New Features Policy.

      In current implementation of GreenHopper, a single Epic can support multiple projects as needed. This means that only a single Epic issue type is used for all boards available by default. And due to this configurations, users are not able to create a new Epic issue type, and have different boards to use different Epic.

      It will be great if GreenHopper allows users to create multiple Epic issue type, and configure the available boards to use specific Epic issue type as required.

      Sample use case:

      In our (and most likely other users) case we have a combination of hardware and software projects. The two project streams are loosely coupled. For the hardware side, the use of the word "Epic" would not feel really natural. Example: 2 Volts power rise within 10 nanoseconds is not an "Epic", it is a "Feature". On the other hand the software that drives the instrument can use the "Epic" terminology. Example: "Device drivers support power-on sequence and self-test of high-speed power card".

      Therefore I think it would be great if one could specify per configured board (Kanban or Scrum) which issue type should be considered the "Top Level Hierarchy".

            [JSWSERVER-7203] Add the ability to create multiple Epic issue type in JIRA Software

            Worth noting that you can add standard issue types as Epic level items in the Advanced Roadmaps (AR) Hierarchy so that AR treats them like epics.  This won't change how Jira treats/manages Epic items for Scrum / Agile type use, but it is useful for those of us that us Jira for general project and process management across multiple teams, eg Service Delivery, Construction, etc. 

            Stuart Robertson added a comment - Worth noting that you can add standard issue types as Epic level items in the Advanced Roadmaps (AR) Hierarchy so that AR treats them like epics.  This won't change how Jira treats/manages Epic items for Scrum / Agile type use, but it is useful for those of us that us Jira for general project and process management across multiple teams, eg Service Delivery, Construction, etc. 

            Juampa added a comment -

            We need the ability to have other top level issue types too for Product Management. Please consider creating documentation or implementing some improvements in Jira. +1

            Juampa added a comment - We need the ability to have other top level issue types too for Product Management. Please consider creating documentation or implementing some improvements in Jira. +1

            Same in server - Advanced Roadmaps lets you create levels above Epic only. So even if you, for example, configure "Project" and "Milestone", you can't have Task under milestone, it expects an Epic link. Or e.g. "Position" and "Candidate" - you simply can't create such hierarchy. You have to use Epic in each project if you need more than standard issue types plus sub-tasks.

            Daniel Brvnišťan added a comment - Same in server - Advanced Roadmaps lets you create levels above Epic only. So even if you, for example, configure "Project" and "Milestone", you can't have Task under milestone, it expects an Epic link. Or e.g. "Position" and "Candidate" - you simply can't create such hierarchy. You have to use Epic in each project if you need more than standard issue types plus sub-tasks.

            Tim Nelson - It's been a while since I've used a server version, but in Cloud, at least, it's not possible. You can create levels ABOVE Epic in your hierarchy, but cannot create multiple epic issue types the way you can story-level issue types.

            Esther Strom [ACP-JA] added a comment - Tim Nelson - It's been a while since I've used a server version, but in Cloud, at least, it's not possible. You can create levels ABOVE Epic in your hierarchy, but cannot create multiple epic issue types the way you can story-level issue types.

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this possible now with Advanced Roadmaps (Jira Premium required)? 

            Tim Nelson added a comment - Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this possible now with Advanced Roadmaps (Jira Premium required)? 

            Is there a cloud version of this suggestion? Thanks

            Aarón López ITERA added a comment - Is there a cloud version of this suggestion? Thanks

            We have a requirement to create a custom Epic issue type with the same functionality as the system's Epic issue type, but it seems that we can't. 

            Is there any alternative for this?

            Vedant Kulkarni_Trundl added a comment - We have a requirement to create a custom Epic issue type with the same functionality as the system's Epic issue type, but it seems that we can't.  Is there any alternative for this?

            Okay Atlassian, time to talk serious now....

            EITHER : you advocate a way of work with epics, stories, tasks, etc. and make sure all the software uses that same approach and don't allow too much own adaptation.
            OR: you allow flexibility and users to adapt and mold the system to their own needs, but all the way, and not just half n half.

            I've had similar issues where i started using the flexible possibilities but in the end needed to screw that back because actually, it wasn't flexible and you need to use the Jira way.
            Examples :

            • Resolutions are mandatory to make things work properly (such as built in filters and all) However custom workflows don't provide this automatically
            • Created a custom "epic-like" type for a release (mainly releases managed by external companies), however can't get it to show up decently in roadmaps 
            • Created different project categories to label projects by type or nature, however can't use that field in automations unless using exotic workarounds

            there is probably more, but the story stays the same.
            There is no use in giving flexibility if it breaks stuff further down the line..... (in my opinion)

            Feel free to reach out to discuss

            Wim Matthijs added a comment - Okay Atlassian, time to talk serious now.... EITHER : you advocate a way of work with epics, stories, tasks, etc. and make sure all the software uses that same approach and don't allow too much own adaptation. OR: you allow flexibility and users to adapt and mold the system to their own needs, but all the way, and not just half n half. I've had similar issues where i started using the flexible possibilities but in the end needed to screw that back because actually, it wasn't flexible and you need to use the Jira way. Examples : Resolutions are mandatory to make things work properly (such as built in filters and all) However custom workflows don't provide this automatically Created a custom "epic-like" type for a release (mainly releases managed by external companies), however can't get it to show up decently in roadmaps  Created different project categories to label projects by type or nature, however can't use that field in automations unless using exotic workarounds there is probably more, but the story stays the same. There is no use in giving flexibility if it breaks stuff further down the line..... (in my opinion) Feel free to reach out to discuss

            Can't believe it isn't possible! Please, tell me I am wrong!!!

            frederico.aranha added a comment - Can't believe it isn't possible! Please, tell me I am wrong!!!

            dynalz added a comment -

            After 99999 years still no progress

            dynalz added a comment - After 99999 years still no progress

              Unassigned Unassigned
              afaisal Ahmad Faisal (Inactive)
              Votes:
              526 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              244 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated: