Re: Bugs organisation

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> Sorry for the ate response here...
>
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we currently have a bunch of different places with bugs against the HTML
> spec.
> >
> > Under product HTML WG, by component:
> > CR HTML5 spec         8 bugs
> > HTML5 spec            127 bugs
> > LC1 HTML5 spec                2 bugs
> > maincontent element   4 bugs
> > pre-LC1 HTML5 spec    3 bugs
> >
> > Under product HTML.next, by component:
> > default                       115 bugs
> >
> > That's a bit of a mess. I'd like to propose the following organisation:
> >
> > • HTML WG/CR HTML5 spec: all the bugs that we plan to fix inside of the
> CR (typically, typos and various kinds of must-have fixes).
> >
> > • HTML WG/HTML 5.1: all the bugs that we plan to fix in 5.1.
> >
> > • HTML.next/default: anything that we might consider for 5.2, but not
> now (at this stage, I don't expect there to be anything in there).
>
> I like this organization, but I think it's confusing for HTML.next to be a
> separate "product" rather than component.


Yes, that hits the core of my issue on the head.


> I would suggest using something like:
>
> HTML WG/HTML.next
> HTML WG/HTML future
> HTML WG/HTML future version
>
> I like the "future" naming a bit better because "HTML.next" is ambiguous
> (does it mean 5.1, 5.2, or anything post-5.1?) while "future" more clearly
> means "later than any otherwise existing version. It's also easier to apply
> the pattern to our other specs if they turn out to need a "future"
> component.
>

FWIW: I agree.

Silvia.


>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
> >
> > That involves going through the above list of 259 bugs and moving them.
> I don't want to presume that existing bugs are well-categorised, except for
> HTML.next bugs which I think can be mass-moved to 5.1.
> >
> > Any thoughts? If no one objects, I'll go ahead and do that.
> >
> > --
> > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> >
>
>
>