W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

RE: defect lifecycle diagram - 2 more cases not covered..

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:23 UTC