RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.5.2

["Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>]

Here's my original 2.1.5.2 suggestion:
2.1.5.2
Suggestion: The SDD specification must support the ability for the
author to define information about component versions obsoleted or
superseded by the deployment of the current version of a component and
how the deployment must handle those versions.

Although, I like your new rewrite a lot better.

BTW, when I say "here's my original suggestion", I'm referring to the
suggestions I came up with over the weekend while I was recovering from
my lurgy.

Cheers,

/john patton/

--
ca
Senior Software Engineer
Office: 630 505-6150
Cell: 847-224-9196
john.patton@ca.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Nash [mailto:jay@o-ms.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:08 AM
> To: Patton, John H
> Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.5.2
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> John, Josh, all
> 
> Fix, Update, Upgrade,
> All have specific definitions in the Glossary Patch is not 
> yet defined.  _Resource_ may be the term we can use to 
> incorporate all of the above.
> 
> If we mean to expand the requirement beyond the "Maintenance" 
> section, or make it less restrictive,  then maybe this 
> language would work.
> 
> 2.1.5.2 - The SDD must support the ability for the author to 
> define information about a resource that has been superseded 
> by a maintenance operation.
> 
> from
> 
> >> "The SDD specification must support the ability for the author to 
> >> define information about the fixes superseded or obsoleted by the 
> >> deployment of
> >> fix(es) or updated versions."
> 
> Jay Nash
> 
> Patton, John H wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Josh Allen [mailto:jallen@macrovision.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:43 PM
> >> To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Subject: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.5.2
> >>
> >> I had an action item to send a rewording of requirement
> >> 2.1.5.2 which relates to superseded & obsoleted fixes.
> >>
> >> The text currently reads: "The SDD specification must support the 
> >> ability for the author to define information about the fixes 
> >> superseded or obsoleted by the deployment of a fix or fixes."
> >>
> >> First, I agree with the definitions that Debra sent in her recent 
> >> document of superseded (replaced by approximate
> >> functionality) and obsoleted (no longer necessary at all). 
>  I wonder 
> >> if we need both concepts for fixes.  It seems that they 
> may have the 
> >> same semantics:
> >> "this fix has what you need."  I'd recommend that we only have the 
> >> concept of superseded fixes.  I think obsoletion is a 
> great concept 
> >> to apply to other things than fixes (like package content).
> >>
> >> Second, my issue with this requirement was that I felt it was too 
> >> restrictive.  By saying "...by the deployment of a fix or 
> fixes," we 
> >> imply that past fixes can only be superseded/obsoleted by 
> other fixes 
> >> (as opposed to new versions).  I don't think we want that.
> >>
> >> I would recommend that the phrase read:
> >> "The SDD specification must support the ability for the author to 
> >> define information about the fixes superseded or obsoleted by the 
> >> deployment of
> >> fix(es) or updated versions."
> >>
> >> Would love to know the thoughts of the group.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Josh
> >>
> > 
> > I like the rephrasing that you suggest.  The only question 
> that I have 
> > is with the word "Fix".  Should we use this word, or should be use 
> > "patch" or "update" or "upgrade"?  They all seem to have different 
> > meanings, and I think those meanings need to be defined.  
> We could all 
> > agree that "fix" means any of "patch" "update" or "upgrade" 
> and I'd be 
> > happy with that.
> > 
> > Nice work on this!
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > /john patton/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> - --
> - --
> Jay Nash, CTO
> OMS SafeHarbor
> 128 Warren St
> Lowell MA 01852
> 978.937.2363 ext.111
> 978.937.3784 fax
> 
> This message (including any attachments) contains 
> confidential information intended for a specific individual 
> and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the 
> intended recipient, you should delete this message and are 
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution 
> of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is 
> strictly prohibited.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> 
> iD8DBQFEBu5KHsIa/RmVc78RAnzfAJwOqSvhyDqCLdv08wup9rIV9/wKTwCgheP3
> oRu+Jq0YXDuv2CBNrn9d2B8=
> =h2Jw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>