Create
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Sign up Log in
Celebration

Earn badges and make progress

You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.

Deleted user Avatar
Deleted user

Level 1: Seed

25 / 150 points

Next: Root

Avatar

1 badge earned

Collect

Participate in fun challenges

Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!

Challenges
Coins

Gift kudos to your peers

What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.

Recognition
Ribbon

Rise up in the ranks

Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!

Leaderboard

Come for the products,
stay for the community

The Atlassian Community can help you and your team get more value out of Atlassian products and practices.

Atlassian Community about banner
4,461,959
Community Members
 
Community Events
176
Community Groups

Advice for naming schemes

I'm slowly cleaning up my small JIRA instance, including consolidating config where possible. Right now I'm thinking about how I name workflow schemes. 

Do you have a standard naming system for your schemes (workflow and otherwise)?

What advice do you have?

1 comment

Actually, two schemes, sort of.

I prefer a system where projects are grouped by similarities in the way they're supposed to work.  A large system I looked after had over 1,000 projects, but only 4 development models (I'm oversimplifying a bit here).  So when someone in development said "I need a new project", we asked which one of the 4 models they needed and applied the shared scheme to them.  Each model had a very specific set of schemes, so we had things like:

  • model-1-permissions
  • model-1-issue-type-screen
  • model-1-field-configs
  • model-2-permissions
  • model-2-issue-type-screen
  • model-2-field-configs
  •  and so-on.

Of course, there were exceptions.  That covered the developers, but then we had HR, Operations, Building control, etc.  These guys were not developers and needed very different schemes, but also tended to have only one or two projects each.  So we kept the scheme name simple - named it appropriately, but always prefixed with the project key.  This was in the days when changing a project key was a project in itself, not a quick "edit and reindex" like it is now.  Now I use a human descriptive prefix like HR or Operations instead of a project key.

Comment

Log in or Sign up to comment