- From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:54:30 -0000
- To: <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4ED4BEA3C04CAF4C8F9BEE10116D2E300331A3B4@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
If there is no further action to be made, 'resolved' looks good to me.
The diagram has the resolution being set to 'fixed' at the same time so
this makes sense.
Note that it is possible to move from 'needsReview' back to 'editorial'
if the wg is not satisfied with the editorial fix. I didn't see that in
the diagram.
--
ginny
________________________________
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Valentina Popescu
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:52 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Action 108 - tracking bugs - 'Reviewed' keyword cannot be used
Hi everybody,
In the last SML meeting we have reviewed and approved the proposal below
describing the flow to be used when editorial defects follow a review
process.
The agreement has been recorded here
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0269.html
The proposal requires that editorial defects for which agreement has
been reached must have their keyword changed to 'Reviewed'. The problem
I just noticed today while trying to update some of my reviewed defects
is that w3c bugzilla does not allow this keyword as this is not part of
the known set of valid values.
The set of keywords currently accepted by w3c bugzilla system :
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describekeywords.cgi
There are two options to overcome this problem :
1. Require webmaster to create a new keyword, 'Reviewed' so that we can
apply the process we had just agreed to
2. Try to exchange the 'Reviewed' keyword from our proposal with
something already available in the pool set; keywords that seem to fit
our usage : 'proposalAccepted', 'resolved', 'reviewerSatisfied'
Suggestions ?..
Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone: (905)413-2412 (tie-line 969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850
Valentina Popescu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/27/2007 02:41 PM
To
Valentina Popescu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-sml@w3.org"
<public-sml@w3.org>, public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Action 108 - tracking bugs
Attaching a jpg version of the chart document
Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone: (905)413-2412 (tie-line 969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850
Valentina Popescu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/24/2007 10:00 AM
To
John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
cc
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>, public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject
Action 108 - tracking bugs
This is Ginny's note
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2007Aug/0000.html
I sent last week a proposal to the editors group on how to deal with
defects as they go through the editorial-needsReview-closed lifecycle (
this is what is questioned in the thread below and is not covered by
Ginny's note)
I am resending here to the entire group; see attached chart
Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone: (905)413-2412 (tie-line 969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850
John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/21/2007 02:07 PM
To
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an
instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron
spec
My memory says that the transitions were
needsAgreement -> needsReview (once consensus is reached, for the subset
the wg wants to see the text of before it is committed to a draft)
needsReview -> (blank) + assigned -> fixed , once a needsReview bug has
consensus that the proposed text should be committed
I believe we discussed this first call after the f2f (but I could easily
be off here, typing this while on a plane) and we said we would update
ginny's diagram and post a text version of the process on the group web
page for reference, the latter actions after 2nd draft.
If someone can troll minutes for the discussion, we should check those
of course. Even if they match my memory there's no guarantee everyone
heard the discussion identically.
Best Regards, John
Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787
Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/19/2007 05:19 PM
To
Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>, "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an
instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron
spec
I agree that we need to follow a consistent procedure.
I followed the resolved-fixed path since it tells me that I have
completed work on the bug. If the WG does not agree with the fix, the
bug can always be reopened (as you correctly did). However, I am ok
either way. That is, marking either resolved-fixed or keep-open after
editorial change that needs review.
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:45 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated
for an instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the
schematron spec
I'm slightly confused by the process.
After an editor makes a change to fix a bug and the change needs to be
reviewed by the WG (hence marked "needsReview"), should the bug be
marked "resolved" immediately or should it be left open? Some bugs with
needsReview were left open, but some others were "resolved".
I had thought that they should stay "open" until the WG reviews and
approves them. I was depending on my "all open SML bugs" query and never
look at resolved bugs, which obviously missed a few of them.
Some clarification would be appreciated. Also for those that are
reviewed/approved by the WG, should its keyword be changed to something
else so that they won't be caught by people's search criteria again?
Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema/>
Member, W3C SML WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/>
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255
bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
2007-09-14 02:19 AM
To
public-sml@w3.org
cc
Subject
[Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an
instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron
spec
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4803
kumarp@microsoft.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
[attachment "needsReviewChart.doc" deleted by Valentina
Popescu/Toronto/IBM] [attachment "needsReview.JPG" deleted by Valentina
Popescu/Toronto/IBM]
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 16:53:19 UTC