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

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

From: Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:40:42 -0400
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF6150D95.40766B17-ON85257371.007629A3-85257371.00771395@ca.ibm.com>
For #2  I left open the option for allowing working on editorial defects 
with no target or to require defects to have a target before they are 
worked on  :)
I have no strong attraction to either, just a minor inclination ( as Kumar 
did, I think ) toward 'no target, no fixes for that defect' so that we 
give a meaning to the targetMilestone field

Either option, it should be marked in the diagram


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




"Lynn, James (HP Software)" <james.lynn@hp.com> 
10/11/2007 05:28 PM

To
Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>, Valentina 
Popescu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" 
<virginia.smith@hp.com>
cc
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Subject
RE: RE: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered..






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 21:41:28 UTC

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