W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2018

Re: Closing requirement issues on github?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:24:54 +0200
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <18f8074a-ff30-ce08-88a4-a8f31db4756f@few.vu.nl>
Hi Karen,

Yes that's right if they're closes they're still visible.
I must say that if some are the ones we agree were confusing then I won't oppose closing these. Still a bit of explanation on the closure would be useful - it's quite easy to do them when one close the issue, while trying to retrace later what happened is super hard.

What could be done:
- adding a label for the provenance, e.g. '6.1 spreadsheet section' (6.1 came from our old spreadsheet). Btw perhaps Nick should do this for all the requirements he created (he already marked them as coming from the Google Doc, but in comment not in label). Housekeeping labels are really powerful in github.
- adding a comment why it was closed.


On 01/07/18 07:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Sorry, Antoine, I should have checked.
> There are all of the previous "6.1" requirements there that I put in
> github for the f2f3. We talked about removing them because they are
> confusing - that's the first one (209). Although "closed" gets them out
> of our view, they don't really go away. I don't know how to mark those
> because they aren't approved, they are kind of superseded.
> The other one was one of the few of the new requirements that we have
> discussed on github and I considered it (yep, unilaterally) done.
> I'll restore both, and mark the one approved, but would greatly
> appreciate some advice on clearing up the old ones. And at some point we
> should consider the requirements "done".
> kc
> On 6/30/18 9:40 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Continuing on the discussion in the other thread - but trying to focus
>> on one aspect: closing github requirements.
>> I've seen that Karen closed two requirements issues
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/209
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/255
>> I'm not sure for the first (I miss the time to check) but I'm sure that
>> the second ("Requirement: There needs to be a property in the profile
>> where the rules for the descriptive content can be provided. This would
>> apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)") is one corresponds to a
>> requirement that we approved on the Google doc
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/
>> As much as I don't like at this stage to create issue for every
>> requirement by default, I think we shouldn't make disappear the
>> requirements that happened to have been discussed and validated, after
>> we've decided to have the discussion on github because it was impossible
>> to have it on the Google doc.
>> This is what I've said to Nick, basically: when the Google doc effort is
>> finished, I agree the requirements should be on github (it's just that I
>> didn't feel we all have the bandwidth to pay attention to all of them on
>> github and the Google doc at once).
>> Perhaps once the discussion on github is finished and a requirment is
>> approved we can keep it open, and add a label like 'approved', instead
>> of making it disappear.
>> In any case, when we close issues we should always indicate the reason
>> why we're closing it in a comment or by assigning a label (for example
>> "won't fix"). I'm not a developer, but in my experience this is always
>> how I saw more github-experienced people than me were doing.
>> Cheers
>> Antoine
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2018 17:25:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:00 UTC