W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

RE: Action 108 - tracking bugs - 'Reviewed' keyword cannot be used

From: Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:55:32 -0400
To: "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Cc: public-sml@w3.org, public-sml-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF86182F3.E8279A5C-ON8525736A.00614F42-8525736A.006278AC@ca.ibm.com>
Ginny, on your comment:
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.

As I read from the 'editorial' keyword definition

editorial 
An editorial issue - final wording may need WG approval, but WG does not 
need to discuss technical direction.

This definition says that defects in 'editorial' state may need wg 
approval ( approval we mark by using the needsReview keyword ). 
Looking at the diagram attached below, an 'editorial' defect can skip the 
needsReview path. But this should not be an option for defects rejected in 
the needsReview process. They are definitely still required to stay on the 
'needsReview' road until they are resolved; not give them the chance to 
move back to 'editorial' and possibly be closed without another review 
process. The rejection may result in backing up the changes or updating 
the changed content, but this should not affect the needsReview state of 
that defect.

So I think that rejected defects must stay in needsReview and not move one 
back up to 'editorial' 



Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone:  (905)413-2412         (tie-line  969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850




"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
10/04/2007 12:54 PM

To
<public-sml@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Action 108 - tracking bugs - 'Reviewed' keyword cannot be used






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
Member, W3C SML WG
(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] 


needsReview.JPG
(image/jpeg attachment: needsReview.JPG)

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 17:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:06 UTC