Re: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements, really?

Hi all,

We - conneg editors - agree that de-tagging isn't a great idea. When we do this, we loose the historical record of Issues that documents have dealt with.

Going forward, we will simply tag issues with xxx-closed when they are closed from the point of view of a subgroup, e.g. if profile-negotiation feels an issue is closed for them, we will use profile-negotiation-closed. This will allow us to deal with issues closed in subgroups and yet still retain the historical record.

Nick


On 17/4/19, 1:33 am, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

    Hi Lars, everyone,
    
    I am not sure to understand why removing the profile-negotiation tag from requirements that have been met. They are still relevant to negotiation even if they are met, aren't they? I would consider closing them is a much better option (though one may argue it's better done in plenary). Loosing the connection from Use Cases and Requirements to our products does not seem good - especially if there are some automatic listings made by using these tags...
    
    Cheers,
    
    Antoine
    
    On 12/04/2019 12:35, Svensson, Lars wrote:
    > ... are at [1].
    > 
    > We spent most of the meeting reviewing open GitHub issues, deciding to flag some of them for closing and to remove the profile-negotiation tag from requirements we consider have been met.
    > 
    > [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-dxwgcneg-minutes

    > 
    > Best,
    > 
    > Lars
    > 
    > *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
    >

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2019 20:24:46 UTC