RE: Editor's TODO list

I suspect we would actually like mail for changes to any file in
dev.w3.org:2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/ or perhaps the following list:

edtodo.html
entities.dtd
entitiesedcopy.dtd
entitieswd.dtd
prevwgmb.txt
wgmb.txt
wsdl12-bindings.xml
wsdl12-primer.xml
wsdl12-soap.xsd
wsdl12.xml
wsdl12.xsd
xmlspec-wsdl.xsl
xmlspec.dtd
xmlspec.xsl


I think the only problem with making a list is that the things on the
list may change over time.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org] 
> Sent: 10 October 2002 15:21
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques 
> Moreau; Roberto Chinnici; Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Subject: RE: Editor's TODO list
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 06:42, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > If we talk nicely to Philippe he may be able to get CVS to send out 
> > mail automatically. Philippe?
> 
> Sure it's possible. Our mirroring system is in fact using a 
> similar way to propagate the changes. I'm going to talk 
> nicely to Ted since he is the one behing our mirroring system 
> setup. So the plan is: the cvs system sends a 
> spa^H^H^Hmessage for each update of 
> dev.w3.org:2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/edtodo.html
> to a mailing list specific to the editors.
> Is that ok?
> 
> > That said, we should all be running CVS update before any editing 
> > session anyway, so it will be easy to see if anything has changed 
> > since the last sync. And the change log in the spec should 
> contain the 
> > details ( for SOAP I tend to put more detail into the spec 
> change log 
> > than the CVS change log ).
> 
> That's the part I like with CVS. You cannot blame me for the 
> merge troubles :)
> 
> Philippe
> 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: 07 October 2002 04:05
> > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > Cc: W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau; 
> > > roberto.chinnici@sun.com; Jeffrey Schlimmer
> > > Subject: Re: Editor's TODO list
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                                                               
> > >                                                  
> > >                                                               
> > >                                                  
> > >                                                               
> > >                                                  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Gudge,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for settign this up! I think it'll help us all be
> > > aware of what the other editors are up to.
> > > 
> > > In addition, I would like us to send a note to each other
> > > when we change the document - basically I'm saying that I'd 
> > > rather a "push" of the info rather than "pull" via updating 
> > > the CVS repo and checking the document.
> > > 
> > > I will be very happy to send mail to all when I do make changes.
> > > 
> > > (We could get a mailing list set up in W3C I'm sure to make
> > > this easier.)
> > > 
> > > Sanjiva.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> on 10/04/2002 11:49:48 PM
> > > 
> > > To:    "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, 
> > > "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
> > >        <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, Sanjiva
> > >        Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Jeffrey Schlimmer"
> > >        <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> > > cc:
> > > Subject:    Editor's TODO list
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I've created a skeleton editor's TODO list and checked it
> > > into CVS[1]. This is based on the SOAP 1.2 editor's TODO 
> > > list, so Jean-Jacques should find it very familiar. For 
> > > everyone elses benefit here is how I see it working.
> > > 
> > > Each row in the table has the following columns:
> > > 
> > > Issue - The issue number in our issues list that the
> > > editorial task relates to ( if any )
> > > 
> > > Spec Part - The part of the spec the task relates to. Either
> > > Part 1, Part 2 or Both.
> > > 
> > > Description - A description of the changes required in order
> > > to complete the task. This can be detailed information or it 
> > > may just say something like 'Incorporate issue resolution'.
> > > 
> > > Resolution - A description of what was ACTUALLY done. Most
> > > often this will match the description column. In some cases, 
> > > especially with editorial issues, it may vary somewhat from 
> > > the description column.
> > > 
> > > Prority - One of High, Medium, Low. This is used to
> > > prioritize editorial tasks. Most will be medium. If we have a 
> > > task which the WG is blocked on ( the group can't usefully 
> > > discuss anything until we've made the changes
> > > ) then that would be High priority. Things which are classed 
> > > as 'nice to have' are typically Low. For example, in XMLP 
> > > during last call, most substantive issue resolutions were 
> > > Medium. Issues classed as purely editorial by the WG were 
> > > prioritized as Low.
> > > 
> > > Status - This is typically either Pending ( i.e. not done yet
> > > ) or Done, along with author initials and a date in CCCCMMYY 
> > > form. There is usually a corresponding entry in the change 
> > > log in the spec with the same date. Occasionally, where a 
> > > task is large, this column may contain partial info ( e.g. 
> > > "Updated Part 1, still need to update Part 2" or "Section 4 
> > > has been deleted, still need to make changes to Section 5" ). 
> > > You can also use this field to 'grab' a task  (e.g. Working 
> > > on it now, MJG 20021004 ) although I would tend to send out 
> > > mail to the editors anyway to tell them what I was about to do.
> > > 
> > > So each row in the table represents an editorial task,
> > > typically one which is self-consistent ( i.e. doing it on 
> > > it's own doesn't leave the spec in a weird state ). It's OK 
> > > to break up an issue resolution into multiple tasks where 
> > > that makes sense although it's not necessary to do so. In the 
> > > HTML markup each row has a class attribute. This can be one
> > > of:
> > > 
> > > Open - task is open and still needs to be completed
> > > 
> > > Closed - task is complete
> > > 
> > > Pending - task is awaiting input from WG. This is typically
> > > used when the editorial team have had difficulty 
> > > incorporating an issue resolution for some reason.
> > > 
> > > Subsumed - task has been subsumed by another task. For
> > > example, sometimes one issue resolution will render another 
> > > moot. The task it has been subsumed by should appear in the 
> > > Resolution column.
> > > 
> > > Cancelled - Task has been cancelled. A reason should be
> > > recorded in the Resolution column.
> > > 
> > > Editorial - This class has been used in XMLP for tasks
> > > related to issues marked editorial. Tasks are marked open 
> > > until the edits of the spec are complete and then the task is 
> > > marked editorial to remind the editors to send closing text 
> > > to the originator of the issue and our comments list. Once 
> > > that mail has been sent the task is marked closed.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Whenever a task moves from one class to another the Status
> > > column should be updated, typically with something like:
> > > 
> > >  Done. MJG 20021004
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Currently the table is empty apart from one task for Part 2
> > > which I remembered from talking to Jeff.
> > > 
> > > I plan to populate the table as appropriate over the next few
> > > days. Please add anything you are aware of that needs to be 
> > > in there. I will be sweeping the minutes going back to 
> > > February just to be sure. I will NOT be putting things in 
> > > here that are already incorporated into the spec. We'll just 
> > > use it going forward.
> > > 
> > > Hope this makes sense, if you have any comments, questions or
> > > suggestions please shout. In my experience over on XMLP 
> > > maintaining this doc wasn't very much work and it did help us 
> > > keep track of what needed doing.
> > > 
> > > Gudge
> > > 
> > > P.S. remember to run "cvs update" often
> > > 
> > >  [1]
> > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/> 
> ~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/edtodo.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> -- 
> Philippe Le Hegaret - http://www.w3.org/People/LeHegaret/
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Technical staff
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 10:26:03 UTC