- From: Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:56:13 -0400
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-sml@w3.org, public-sml-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF1F99787D.42F8017E-ON85257372.0051C0B0-85257372.00520B9D@ca.ibm.com>
You are correct, setting the target should be allowed to be done earlier - before a defect is made editorial ; target milestone is also used on defects non editorial so it makes sense to decouple the action of setting the target from the action of marking a bug editorial Thank you, Valentina Popescu IBM Toronto Labs Phone: (905)413-2412 (tie-line 969) Fax: (905) 413-4850 John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 10/12/2007 10:16 AM To public-sml@w3.org cc Subject RE: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered.. I always read the target to indicate prioritization, regardless of its state. Thus a current-draft-targetted editorial bug would ordinarily be serviced preferentially over editorial bugs lacking the current draft target qualification, all other things equal. I have no objection if we require target draft to be set when a bug transitions into editorial, however I think we must allow target draft to be set earlier. We used target draft (and P1/P2 within a draft) during July for example on non-editorial bugs to indicate what order we thought they needed to be resolved in, regardless of whether the next immediate step for any given bug was to author a proposal, discuss a proposal, or do editorial updates once a proposal had been agreed to. Best Regards, John Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601 Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 14:57:02 UTC