Re: action: proposal for aligning IssuesProcess and Tracker

This looks fine to me. Very helpful Thanks Ralph.

--Jon

On 2/27/07, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> 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.
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 16:10:44 UTC