- 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