[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Issue "states"? (was: [security-services] Updated Issues List )
I previously stated that I intended to close issues with a resolution of "deferred" and we would pick up the deferred ones when work on the next version starts.
I actually can't remember why I prefered this to deferred status, so I guess we can do it your way instead.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hodges [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:22 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Issue "states"? (was: [security-services] Updated
> Issues List)
> Presently the issues-07 doc employs two states for issues:
> open or closed.
> We've danced around the topic of issue "states" on concalls,
> and a notion of
> "deferred" has been at least mentioned.
> So, folding "deferred" in with "open" and "closed", what do
> folks, especially
> Hal, think of these issue state semantics..
> open: the issue's been at least raised. the one raising it
> is nominal
> unless the mantle is passed (e.g. by someone
> volunteering and/or the
> tugging sleeves).
> closed: as Hal puts it "we're never going to talk about it
> deferred: we're not going to address this issue in the
> present in-process
> specification version, but we want to keep the
> issue around for
> consideration in future versions. The champion is
> preserved, and
> can be changed in the same manner as open issues.
> So, for example, there's likely at least a few issues in
> issues-07 that we
> ought to "defer" rather than simply "close".
> And we want to move open issues to either "closed" or
> "deferred" because we
> need to not have any open issues in order to enter Last Call.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Powered by eList eXpress LLC