OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sdd message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.5.2


I think that both superseded and obsoleted may apply to fixes. Some fixes may be replaced by other maintenance that solves the problem in a completely different way. These fixes probably need to be removed in order for the solution to remain in a valid state. I would call that an obsoleted fix. Other fixes are included in future maintenance in a way that replaces the fix and so does not require removal of the fix. I would call that a superseded fix. I think we need to keep both.

How about this wording?

2.1.5.2 - The SDD specification must support definition, within solution maintenance, of information about fixes which are superseded or obsoleted by deployment of the solution maintenance.

I've added a concept missing from the original - the fact that it is the maintenance (fix or update) that causes the superseding or obsoleting that contains the definition. I think that is important.

Julia McCarthy



Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>


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

          03/01/2006 05:56 PM


To

<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>

cc


Subject

RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.5.2


> -----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 2.1.5.2 which relates to superseded & obsoleted fixes.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 fixes superseded or obsoleted by the deployment of a fix or fixes."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 recent document of superseded (replaced by approximate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 have the concept of superseded fixes.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/

GIF image



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]