W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Confusion about Kirill's comments

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:17:48 -0700
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA2690206F4998A@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Lofton is correct - sorry for confusion, I meant:
> ** okay with to raise CP8.2 (vers/errata in maintenance procedures) to P1,
> ** raise CP3.2 (v/e support capability built into TM
> deliverables) to P2 (instead of Commentor's suggested P1).

The rationale for raising cp3.2 to P2 instead of P1:
Providing support for erratas in the TM is one (probably one of the best) of techniques to help comply with cp8.2, e.g. ensure that test materials are in sync with erratas.
There are other techniques (branches for erratas/versions using some decent source management solution, etc)

Requiring to support erratas in the test framework/test metadata with P1 seems to me too limited and may invalidate some test efforts that support erratas but in a different way.

Thanks





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:01 PM
> To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Confusion about Kirill's comments
> 
> 
> Sorting out some confusion about which CPs we were discussing, and
> Kirill's
> comments...
> 
> At 06:12 PM 5/12/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
> >[...]
> >  #d remaining sub-issues of LC72
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0008.html
> >  LH: 72.OG-5 about priority for CP 3.2
> >  ... raising it from 3 to 1 since this is a critical info for test
> >material
> >  ... I agree with the commentor
> >  ... which would also mean raising the priority for 8.2
> >  ... Not supporting errata and versioning seems really important
> >  KG: concerns about "versions"... Versions define new specs altogether
> >  LH: maybe we should clarify and speak about "editions" rather than
> >"versions"
> >  [agreement on OG-5 and 13]
> >  KG: I think 8.1 should be raised to Priority 2 at the same time
> >  LH: no strong feeling about it
> >mai 12 17:50:29 <Zakim> -Lynne
> >  [clarification on a confusion on what CP were being discussed]
> >  KG: I think 8.2 should only be priority 2
> >  [?]
> 
> As I understood it finally, Kirill meant CP3.2 instead of CP8.1.  So as I
> understand Kirill's positions:
> 
> ** okay with to raise CP8.2 (vers/errata in maintenance procedures) to P1,
> 
> ** wants to raise CP3.2 (v/e support capability built into TM
> deliverables)
> to P2 (instead of Commentor's suggested P1).
> 
> Kirill, can you please reply and repeat your rationale?  We should be able
> to finish closing this with a little email discussion.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> >  DM: new versions usually builds on backward compatibility
> >  ... which means that if your test materials support versioning, you can
> >keep them as long as they don't become moot
> >  KG: I think priority 1 CP are pretty sensitive
> >  ... if we have too many of them, that will affect the implementability
> >of the GL
> >  ... will restart the discussion on the mailing list
> >  LH: OG-72
> >  ... (about a sentence in the discussion)
> >  ... mainly editorial since not in a normative part
> >  ... but prefered to check that there was no objection to the change
> >  [no disagreement]
> >  LH: all the other issues were pretty much editorial
> >  ... which close the subissues
> 
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 18:17:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT