Re: [sca-assembly] CD 01 revision 1 available and status of issueresolutions

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Martin Chapman wrote:
> I just went through the JIRA logs and the email archive for minutes and here's what I
> found.
> 
> 
>> 14: done only as it applies to the component property. The resolution 
>> was only for component property, but this should apply to composite 
>> property, component type property (what about 
>> constrainingType property?)
> 
> 
>> 17: JIRA not updated with the resolution, so don't know what to apply
> 
> Resolution to 17 is recorded in the minutes of 19th February. Jira needs to be
> updated.
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200802/msg000
> 93.html
> 

Thanks. I'll get this resolution in rev 2 of CD 01.

>> 18: depends on 12, 12 is closed but don't see it being 
>> applied. Also the 
>> problem as stated in 18 doesn't exist.
> 
> Issue 18 was resolved on the 5th Feb 08 call.
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200802/msg000
> 46.html
> 

Thanks.

> Has this reolution been folded in, thus making it look like the problem didn't exist?
> 

No. Resolutions of both 12 and 18 have not been folded in.
18 resolves a problem (the presence of 'promote' attribute in component 
ref/service) that does not exists as the spec stands. But implementing 
resolution of 18 does not lead to any contradiction and IMHO resolution 
of 18 does make our schema look much better.
Unless there is an objection I'll implement resolutions of both 12 and 
18 as they are recorded.

> As for 12, the JIRA change history has Scott recording it as resolved and closed on
> the same day, and the minutes record the approved motion to "Close and Resolve...."
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/26042/SCA%20Ass
> embly%20minutes%202007-11-06.html#d1e445
> 
> I believe this was before we became more precise in the usage of the terms resolve and
> close, and thus I believe closing it is a mistake. Therefore it suggest we correct it
> back to resolved and let the editors apply the change.
> 

Thanks to the chairs for updating the JIRA.

> 
>> 22: is this a dup of 35? 35 is closed by does not have the 
>> resolution in 
>> JIRA.
> 
> 35 was resolved on the 8th Jan 08 call:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200801/msg000
> 18.html
> Jira should be updated with this link to recored the decision.
> 
> 

OK, but 22 and 35 are the same issue with different resolution. Which 
one should I apply? Note that both contain 2119 keywords.

-Anish
--