W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Issue tracking problem

From: <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:29:18 +0200
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org, public-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6E7CCBAB.EA639DF0-ONC1257313.002333A0-C1257313.0023A04D@inventivegroup.com>


I don't know if I moved all of those to the "Needs Approval" state, but 
the rational about doing this is that I added a proposed reply or a 
possible solution for the issue in the notes section but wanted to ask the 
working group to look at those issues first. They were 'almost' straight 
forward to solve in my opinion but they weren't simple typo's to fix.


Nick Van den Bleeken  -  Research & Development
Inventive Designers
Phone: +32 - 3 - 8210170
Fax: +32 - 3 - 8210171
Email: Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com

public-forms-request@w3.org wrote on 07/07/2007 12:52:06 AM:

> I have done a complete pass through the issue tracker for XForms 1.1
> issues in order to increase our efficiency at addressing issues. 
> The possible states of an issue don't all make sense.  Here is the 
> set of states we seem to need: 
> Open - The problem has been created in the DB and awaits working 
> group consideration 
> Approved - The working group has considered the problem, resolved to
> "Accept" or "Modify and Accept" the proposed solution in the LC 
> comment, and an action item has been assigned 
> Needs Review - A working group member has done the assigned action 
> item by preparing spec ready text and now wants the working group to
> review the result. 
> Implemented - The spec ready text is available in the editor's draft
> or a public update to the spec, and the reply has been delivered to 
> the last call commenter 
> There are two issues: 
> 1) We do seem to have a state called "Needs Approval" that appears 
> between Open and Approved, but this state does not seem to map to 
> anything meaningful.  This is a problem because we currently have 
> four issues  that were classified in this way, and I would like to 
> know why.  If you look at the four cases, you will see that the 
> working group has not made a resolution regarding these four (id=67,
> 68,70,71), so in what sense are they anything but simply "Open"? 
> 2) We do not seem to have the "Needs Review" state.  Note that it 
> seems like the "Needs Approval" state was mistaken for this state in
> six cases.  I have moved those cases to "Approved" because the above
> interpretation of Approved does more accurately reflect their 
> current state and because those six issues were being confused with 
> the other four mentioned above. 
> Perhaps we could discuss this interpretation to make sure everyone 
> who uses the database makes the right settings as more of the LC 
> issues get resolved-- unless or until another scheme is defined. 
> Thanks, 
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer


Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:

Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 06:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC