nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Using non standard issue types in Advanced Roadmaps

Terri Yeago

I have a business group who wants to use a non standard issue type in the plan, called Feature. What are the cons in using an issue type that is not standard? Limitations? If I add it to the project configuration, will it be as useful and beneficial as a e.g. a story (a standard issue type)? Any help on this will be appreciated!

Comments

Nic Brough -Adaptavist-

There's no limitations or cons for having another issue type in a project. The pros are usually quite simple - you can see at a glance what it is likely to contain without reading the detail. If you create feature at the standard issue level (not a sub-task type), it will work the same as any other type at that level (assuming it is set to use all the same schemes)

Terri Yeago

Thank you! Is there anyway to make the issue type at the Epic level and not Story level?

Nic Brough -Adaptavist-

No, the Epic issue type is a special case, a system thing and there's a lot of code in Jira that assumes there is only one type of issue to be used as an epic (also, do not rename Epic - Jira Software works ok if you do, but some apps break in very interesting ways. This is likely to go away as part of the closer integration with Jira Align, but for now, don't rename it)

Terri Yeago

Thank you, Nic!

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

advanced-roadmaps