Thanks very much for your opinion . it is actually the right choice that i used and it provides a flexibility between all state of task because some times we do some states in parallel as create test cases and development so subtasks is more suitable in the real life . thanks very much again and wish you all the best
I'm sure you'll get a lot of opinions here on which is method is "best." My personal opinion is that the method that facilitates the simplest workflow (your idea #2, with sub-tasks representing all the "stuff" to do) is best because it allows the workflow to remain flexible. It will let the workflow be used by other teams (even non-dev teams) that maybe don't have a code review step, for example.
We made the mistake of trying to add every possible "step" to a workflow and in order to accommodate everyone and every possible path, it ballooned to over 20 statuses. I can't say enough just how much I regret that we built this! It was such a bad user experience. Hopefully you can avoid it!
Also, I always recommend only adding statuses to a workflow that you'll actually query for and report on! Had we followed this rule, we would have seen that about 15 of the statuses were not valuable.
Hope this helps,
Rachel Wright
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.