RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

> same doc is going to be less productive

 

This is a function of the tool that you are using. Many of us are using
Eclipse and don't see this as an issue.



________________________________

From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu; Maryann Hondo; Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; Toufic Boubez
Subject: RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

 

30 mins after the WG call sounds good to me also.

 

However parallel work on the same doc is going to be less productive
IMO, given we will then need to deal with CVS conflicts. If we do not
know who is editing and 3 different people go in parallel, resolving
conflicts on text in XML format with 3 (or more) different versions is
going to be very difficult and messy, and costing us more time. It might
be easier to schedule our work and find something else to do while
someone else has the pen (I hope finding something else to do is not
going to be an issue, given how busy we are all :-)

 

Regards,

Prasad

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:21 PM
To: Maryann Hondo; Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; Toufic Boubez
Subject: RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

 

Here is a proposal: meet for 30 minutes after the WG conference call.
Thoughts?

 

I suggest that we think about parallel execution (instead of locking
files and releasing them).

 

I added change logs to both the framework and attachment documents.

 

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:02 AM
To: Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org;
Toufic Boubez
Subject: Re: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

 


That would be good for me. 

Maryann 

Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 

07/13/2006 11:20 AM 

To

Toufic Boubez <tboubez@layer7tech.com> 

cc

public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org 

Subject

Re: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

 

 

 




Toufic Boubez wrote:
> Prasad, Good rules, thanks.
> Editors,
> Could we have an editors call relatively soon? I'd like to get an
> understanding of how we're going to work together, and start
> distributing the workload. I'm not sure how many are traveling today
> after the adjournment (I know at least Maryann is), or tomorrow (I'm
> traveling in the afternoon). Can we get on the phone tomorrow morning?

do you want to establish a regular editor's call and use the zakim
bridge? If yes, please tell me the day / time / duration / occurrence
(like every week / every second week), and I can make the bridge
reservation.

Felix

> Any suggestions? Thanks!  --  Toufic
>  
> Toufic Boubez, Ph.D.
> Chief Technology Officer
>  
> LAYER 7 TECHNOLOGIES / Advancing the application network.
> 604.681.9377 x310 (w)   604.288.7970 (m)
> tboubez@layer7tech.com <mailto:tboubez@layer7tech.com> (e) 
> www.layer7tech.com <http://www.layer7tech.com/> (w)
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Prasad
>     Yendluri
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:16 PM
>     *To:* public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
>     *Subject:* Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>      
> 
>     Here is what we had been doing to coordinate editing work with
some
>     other efforts I had been involved with, that also use CVS:
> 
>      
> 
>        1. When issues get resolved editors accept ownership of a
subset
>           of the issues based on their availability and ownership of
the
>           pertinent area of the spec etc. People play good sport and
>           take turns to distribute the load evenly amongst all the
folks
>           available.
>        2. Generally we have assigned ownership to a doc but not to a
>           subsection of the doc, to make sure a section does not
suffer
>           due to unavailability of an editor. Also if an unreasonable
>           number of issues are scoped to a section, then the owner is
>           unfairly burdened etc.   
>        3. Taking ownership of the issues is typically done the editors
>           call (typically every 2 weeks 1 hour, immediately following
>           the WG call), after looking at the list of all closed issues
>           and AIs pending incorporation into the specs. We also decide
>           who goes first, who goes next etc. We also plan for a final
>           date for completing all the assigned tasks and how long each
>           one needs. We also send a note to the list with the details
of
>           the above, so that everyone knows and *remembers* what they
>           agreed to etc.
>        4. Then when an editors starts work, the editor sends a note to
>           the editors list that he / she is claiming the "pen" for
doc.
>           And when the pen is released, the editors list is notified
>           again, so that the next one in the list can pick up the pen.
>        5. This could seem complex process but, in my experience it has
>           proven to be very smooth and worked really well. It
prevented
>           people from stepping on each other's work or needlessly
>           waiting for others to complete their work, when no one was
>           really doing something etc.
>        6. In terms of tracking the changes in the doc, we made sure an
>           entry is added in the revision history table each time some
>           one checks-in a new version.  Each entry contains the
identity
>           of the person that made the change, revision number (same as
>           CVS revision number), a brief description of the changes
made
>           identifying the issue number, AI number etc. as applicable.
>             The revision history table is placed at the end of the
>           document. WSDL 2.0 has a god example of it.
>        7. Since we are editing an xml document, I have found it useful
>           to do a spell check and also to generate the HTML version
and
>           review, prior to check-in.
>        8. BTW, how do we plan to track the issues list from the
editors'
>           perspective? That is, which issues have been incorporated
and
>           which issues are closed and pending application to the spec
etc.? 
> 
>      
> 
>     Just some inputs for discussion.
> 
>      
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Prasad
>