- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:54 -0400
- To: public-sml@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <OF7D3D3CCD.7DD0DE50-ON85257341.005C9A77-85257341.005D0BBE@us.ibm.com>
Reading through this, it confirms we have a process "bug". There are two exits from Editorial, one needing review by the group of the proposed change (needsReview) and the other going straight to resolved w/o that review. We already encountered this once in practice, where Kumar had to put a comment in the bug so he wouldn't forget to review the proposed change with the group. Seems to me we need to separate the two, eg editorial and editorialReview or some such. Best Regards, John Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601 Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787 "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com> Sent by: member-sml-request@w3.org 08/02/2007 04:52 PM To <member-sml@w3c.org> cc Subject [w3c sml] Action 108 - tracking bugs Please review the attached diagram. This is a proposal from the editors to track the state of bugs. The ovals are actions performed by the WG and the rectangles represent keywords we can use to track the bug status. This proposal is a (very) simplified version of what the schema group is doing. Keywords (they are lower case / camel case): No keyword - the bug is new and ready for triage. 'needsAgreement' - the bug is being discussed or otherwise waiting on some action and not yet ready for the editors. 'editorial' - the bug is ready for an editor to take it and perform the required editorial action based on the resolution agreed upon by the WG. Note that anyone entering a simple 'typo' bug should add this keyword when they submit the bug so we don't spend time on triage for typos. 'needsReview' - the editorial change is complete but the editor would like the WG to review the change. This state may be skipped. That is, the editor may choose to move the bug directly to 'resolved' if she feels that no review is necessary. 'resolved' - the bug is resolved. I will change the bugs we reviewed today to add the appropriate keywords - assuming I don't get any major objections to this proposal. -- ginny [attachment "BugzillaProcess.pdf" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM]
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 16:55:16 UTC