Re: action: proposal for aligning IssuesProcess and Tracker

Ralph,

Seems to be a reasonable proposal.

Guus


Ralph R. Swick wrote:
>  ACTION: Ralph write a proposal for bringing http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/IssuesProcess  and Tracker into alignment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/20-swd-minutes.html#action15]
> 
> The principal issue that triggered this action was the observation
> that Tracker only supported two states for issues {open, closed}
> whereas IssuesProcess proposed {raised, open, pending,
> postponed, closed, subsumed-by}.
> 
> My back-of-the-mind intention in assigning myself that action was
> to give myself a nudge to seeing what it would take to extend Tracker.
> 
> The current SWD Tracker instance now has {raised, open, pending,
> postponed, closed, subsumed} states in the Web interface [1].
> I've not yet touched the irc or email interfaces but since we don't
> use those for input yet I'm hoping the extensions to the Web
> interface will suffice for now.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/
> 
> One remaining issue is the use of the "Raised By" field in Tracker.
> My recommendation is to use this as an "Assigned To" field, as
> that is its actual behavior.  When creating a new issue, the initial
> state will be 'raised' and it is fine to leave "Raised By" as
> "Everyone", ignoring the admonition on the Web form.
> 
> When the issue state is changed to 'open', "Raised By" can then
> be changed to the issue owner.
> 
> The Tracker "Notes" field can be used to hold the resolution,
> references to attachments, test cases, etc. as proposed in
> IssuesProcess.
> 
> If this seems reasonable, I am willing to revise IssuesProcess
> accordingly.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/

Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 15:49:36 UTC