W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [admin] Seeking comments re Issue tracking

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:48:39 +0200
Message-ID: <50ACBF97.2070804@helsinki.fi>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On 11/15/2012 04:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> All,
> I'd like to get some feedback re how the group will track issues. A meta issue here is what we mean by "issue"and to a large extent, it depends on the
> context. In some cases, Issues are relatively broad e.g. "should spec A implement feature X" and in other cases an Issue could be much more specific
> e.g. "should parameter foo be a long or an unsigned long".
> If we want to try to track issues, I think the main options are:  a) Issues are bugs so just use Bugzilla(or whatever bug db we decide to use);
Bugzilla please. Tracker is not open.

  b) use
> Tracker (as is done by WebEventsWG); c) Issues should be explicitly identified in the appropriate spec.
Not sure what c) means, but certainly bug reports should describe what the bug is about.


> My preference is to not be overly prescriptive/formal re how we handle and track issues but that we do indeed try to track them. As such, I am mostly
> indifferent on what we do, although I tend to favor using both b) and c) above, depending on the nature/context of the Issue. OTOH, I think a),
> possibly in combination c) is fine too.
> Comments, preferences?
> If no one feels strongly here, I will start a CfC to use b) and c) for Issue tracking (as is done by WebEventsWG).
> -Thanks, AB
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:24 UTC