W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Getting started with issue tracking

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0711022306000.27205@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > 
> > I am concerned that this issue, as described, does not follow the 
> > template and principles laid out in past posts to this working group
> > 
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0953.html
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what principle the test issue doesn't get right, 
> maybe you could be a bit more specific?

Sorry, I meant this issue tracking system, not the specific issue.


> > Having issues summarised in the above format in the wiki is much more 
> > likely to allow everyone to have their point of view considered.
> 
> Tracker has a Description field that is editable, plus notes which can 
> be added.

Aha, I didn't realise you could edit the description field. This pretty 
much resolves my concerns. I would recommend, though, that we ensure that 
every issue follows the format described in:

   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTemplate
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0946.html

...maybe following the example listed in:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0953.html


> I would expect that when discussion on a specific issue progresses, the 
> Description field would be maintained to summarize the current state of 
> discussion.

That's good, if it happens! :-)


On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Shawn Medero wrote:
> 
> Starting today, I'm going to be migrating pages from the wiki that can 
> actually made into issues. To be honest (and I don't mean to slight all 
> of the folks who have poured a lot of effort into the wiki) there aren't 
> that many pages that can be "copied" over as-is. Most of the "issues" on 
> the wiki read like background research or even position papers... they 
> start with one solution (instead of a problem) and it colors the rest of 
> the content on that page. Things have gotten a little better in the last 
> month and there's a lot of valuable content to be mined from the wiki 
> for particular issues... so I hope to tackle that as best I can.

Thank you for taking this on! I agree that many of the issues in the wiki 
don't follow the format mentioned above. I look forward to seeing the 
tracker have better-written issues! :-)


> I have your linked emails set aside as guidance and some previous notes 
> from off-line discussions we've had about this topic. I hope you'll give 
> the Tracker a chance...

Absolutely.


Question: Is there a way to distinguish issues that are in the following 
states?:

 * Newly added
 * Written in the format described in the template and e-mails above
 * Read, considered, and handled by the editors
 * Closed

In particular, the first three would be really useful to me, as I don't 
necessarily want to look at issues in the first category until they're in 
the second category, and I don't want to look at issues in the third 
category again since they've already been handled by Hyatt or myself.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 23:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:50 UTC