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

RE: Confusion about Kirill's comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:49:03 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030513114149.01ea2590@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QAWG --

no objection == change per Kirill

Does anyone object that we change the 20030512 resolution?

** Majority was:  change P3 to P1 per Originator comments.

** Kirill argues:  change P3 to P2.

My opinion.  Kirill's point is well taken.  There are other ways to support 
the P1 requirement (8.2) of v/e support during maintenance.  I think that 
3.2 and 8.2 could both mention in discussion that 3.2 is a great way, but 
not the only way, to do it.  (I would guess that the Originator would 
accept the explanation and clarification.)

Question.  Does TestGL have a related checkpoint, and if so, what is its 
priority?

-Lofton.

At 03:17 PM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

>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.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 13:46:34 GMT

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