Re: [ws-caf] issues tracking system

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

As promised, here are some specific suggestions on categories.

For those not familiar with bugzilla, it breaks things down into Products
and Components within Products; each component can have text associated with
it describing what's meant by entering an issue against it. So, it seems
like a fairly natural split to define the following Products:

Primer (that's obviously pronounded "prime rrrr" ;-)
WS-Context
WS-Coordination Framework
WS-Transaction Management
General (this last ones meant as a catch-all for things that perhaps don't
fit into one of the other categories)

Then within each "product", the sub-categories would be:

Primer
    Text (covering clarifications/errors)
    Diagrams (covering clarifications/errors)
    Use cases (I assume that we'll have a use case [maybe more than one]
that is used to illustrate the specs.)
    Schema (to cover incosistencies between the specs and any snippets of
schema that may be used here)
    WSDL

WS-Context
    Schema
    WSDL
    Text
    Diagrams
    Interoperability
    Implementation

WS-Coordination Framework
    Schema
    WSDL
    Text
    Diagrams
    Interoperability
    Implementation
    Inconsistencies with using WS-Context

WS-Transaction Management
    Schema
    WSDL
    Text
    Diagrams
    Interoperability
    Implementation
    Inconsistencies with using WS-Context
    Inconsistencies with using WS-Coordination Framework

Any suggestions for additions (or removals), or clarifications? Remember,
these are just meant as category names - the associated text in bugzilla
will fully explain what is meant by each category. This list is also not
meant to be complete. If we find something isn't covered later then we can
always add it then.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
To: "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "'ws-caf'"
<ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] issues tracking system


> Sounds good to me and many thanks for offereing to host it.
> Can you propose categories/products before this is all set up.
>
> Cheers,
>   Martin.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:42 AM
> > To: ws-caf
> > Subject: [ws-caf] issues tracking system
> >
> >
> > At the face-to-face it was agreed that I'd take a look at a
> > couple of potential ways of tracking issues against the
> > various specifications and make some recommendation for the
> > TC to consider. During the meeting we discussed the
> > possibility of using bugzilla and I said I'd take a look at
> > another issue/bug tracking piece of software I'd experience
> > with in the past. That was jitterbug, but unfortunately that
> > project is no longer active.
> >
> > I think we should consider bugzilla because it seems to offer
> > what we want. I'm more familiar with entering issues via the
> > Web form, but there is an email mechanism (apparently) that
> > allows you to submit issues in a well structured manner and
> > the system will thread replies to them appropriately. I have
> > to admit that at this point I don't have any experience with
> > the email entry mechanism, and am only going by what little I
> > have gleamed from the manuals. However, I've asked a couple
> > of people here in Arjuna to investigate and hopefully I can
> > report back to the TC later.
> >
> > In the intrim, I'd like to formalise the proposal: that the
> > TC consider using bugzilla. We (Arjuna) will be happy to host
> > and manage a public (to the TC) bugzilla server for issue
> > tracking. If this proposal is accepted, then we'll set one up
> > and populate it with some categories and components to get us
> > going. If people aren't too familiar with the bugzilla way of
> > doing things then don't worry - I will produce a brief
> > document describing it, how it is set up, with particular
> > relevance to this TCs work (so you don't need to understand
> > all of what bugzilla actually offers). It will be configured
> > to email the TC whenever an issue is entered and people can
> > track the issue by virtue of an associated link. I need to do
> > some further invesigation to see whether we can produce a
> > weekly "dump" of the issues that can perhaps be hosted on the
> > OASIS web site (e.g., a synopsis of the issues, their status
> > etc., with links back to the bugzilla site hosted at Arjuna
> > for more specific details).
> >
> > Any suggestions on this topic will be greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks to Doug for showing me the XML that WS-RM currently
> > use. Doug, as you said, this looks good for a low-volume of
> > issues. At this stage we can't really say whether WS-CAF will
> > have a low-volume or not and I think it's probably best to
> > start off defensively. I can't think of any disadvantage of
> > going the bugzilla route and it does look as though we can
> > automate a lot of what we need to do.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> www.arjuna.com
>
>
>