- From: Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:00:58 -0400
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>, public-sml-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF36BE8329.4BD42538-ON85257360.004B2351-85257360.004CFEC5@ca.ibm.com>
This is Ginny's note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2007Aug/0000.html I sent last week a proposal to the editors group on how to deal with defects as they go through the editorial-needsReview-closed lifecycle ( this is what is questioned in the thread below and is not covered by Ginny's note) I am resending here to the entire group; see attached chart 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 09/21/2007 02:07 PM To "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org> cc Subject RE: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron spec My memory says that the transitions were needsAgreement -> needsReview (once consensus is reached, for the subset the wg wants to see the text of before it is committed to a draft) needsReview -> (blank) + assigned -> fixed , once a needsReview bug has consensus that the proposed text should be committed I believe we discussed this first call after the f2f (but I could easily be off here, typing this while on a plane) and we said we would update ginny's diagram and post a text version of the process on the group web page for reference, the latter actions after 2nd draft. If someone can troll minutes for the discussion, we should check those of course. Even if they match my memory there's no guarantee everyone heard the discussion identically. Best Regards, John Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601 Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787 Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com> Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 09/19/2007 05:19 PM To Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>, "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org> cc Subject RE: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron spec I agree that we need to follow a consistent procedure. I followed the resolved-fixed path since it tells me that I have completed work on the bug. If the WG does not agree with the fix, the bug can always be reopened (as you correctly did). However, I am ok either way. That is, marking either resolved-fixed or keep-open after editorial change that needs review. From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Gao Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:45 AM To: public-sml@w3.org Subject: Re: [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron spec I'm slightly confused by the process. After an editor makes a change to fix a bug and the change needs to be reviewed by the WG (hence marked "needsReview"), should the bug be marked "resolved" immediately or should it be left open? Some bugs with needsReview were left open, but some others were "resolved". I had thought that they should stay "open" until the WG reviews and approves them. I was depending on my "all open SML bugs" query and never look at resolved bugs, which obviously missed a few of them. Some clarification would be appreciated. Also for those that are reviewed/approved by the WG, should its keyword be changed to something else so that they won't be caught by people's search criteria again? Thanks, Sandy Gao XML Technologies, IBM Canada Editor, W3C XML Schema WG Member, W3C SML WG (1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255 bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 2007-09-14 02:19 AM To public-sml@w3.org cc Subject [Bug 4803] Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an instance by evaluation the rule elements...) to refer to the schematron spec http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4803 kumarp@microsoft.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: needsReviewChart.doc
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 14:01:32 UTC