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

RE: RE: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered..

From: Lynn, James (HP Software) <james.lynn@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:28:38 +0000
To: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>, Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>, "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Cc: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AAE921CBF6CD4D4F91F954C3BB35FFFB0AE1FF3AE9@G5W0274.americas.hpqcorp.net>
It did seem easy at the beginning, didn't it?

I definitely agree with #1.

For #2, I don't think I understood the intent that defects should not be worked if they were not current target, I know in at least one case I had worked on one that wasn't the current target. But if we are in agreement that that is the way it is supposed to work, then #2 makes sense.

J

________________________________
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kumar Pandit
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:55 PM
To: Valentina Popescu; Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Cc: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered..

Both cases seem reasonable to me. I agree with the updates suggested by Valentina.

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Valentina Popescu
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:25 PM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Cc: public-sml@w3.org; public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered..


While reviewing defects during today's meeting I realized there are 2 situations not covered by this diagram

Usecases not covered :

1. A defect is opened and the originator marks it directly as editorial ( I think we agreed to support this scenario for cases where defects are clearly minor typos or obvious updates )
In this case the defect doesn't go through the 'no keyword' status as described by the attached diagram. We should include this into the diagram or exclude this option as not acceptable

2. A defect during his lifecycle goes from needsAgreement to 'editorial'
The diagram above suggests that at this stage the editors can work on the defect. As I realized in today's meeting, the targetMilestone should also be set to the current target ( which depending on the stage of the spec can be LC, etc ).  Defects are not supposed to be applied to the spec unless the keyword contains 'editorial' AND target is set to 'current target' .
Again, if this is the case then we should update the diagram, if not we should state that target milestone field does not matter: as long as the keyword contains the 'editorial' string, editors are free to work on that defect

This seemed to be so easy at the very beginning :)

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

10/07/2007 06:21 PM

To

<public-sml@w3.org>

cc

Subject

[w3c sml] ACTION 128 - Updated keyword diagram







Per action 128, I made another pass at the keyword states trying to
consolidate and using a state diagram. The editors have reviewed this.

Thanks,

--
ginny
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:29:21 UTC

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