RE: [ws-rx-editors] Request for updating the targets in the issues list

["Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>]

I like the categorization as well. 

I believe the list allows it, but Marc is the authorative answer. If it
does not, it should be enabled.

--umit
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, Oct 02, 2005 10:17 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Request for updating the targets 
> in the issues list
> 
> +1
> 
> Does the list allow the an issue to have a target of 'wsrm' 
> *and* wsrmp?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Marc Goodner wrote:
> > Sure, changing the targets to mean an actual deliverable 
> makes a lot 
> > more sense. This was another carryover from the source 
> schema I used for 
> > the issue list. They seemed more conceptual than related to actual 
> > deliverables.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Here would be my proposed list:
> > 
> >     * wsrm
> >     * wsrm-schema
> >     * wsrm-wsdl
> >     * wsrmp
> >     * wsrmp-schema
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Am I missing anything or does that look right?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Also, if an issue is the schema or wsdl has an error the target is 
> > obvious. If the issue involves a change to the spec that 
> impacts the 
> > schema or wsdl it seems that we don't need to log that in 
> the target. I 
> > would trust the editors would see the connection without 
> having both the 
> > spec and the schema tagged as a target in such cases.
> > 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > 
> > *From:* Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2005 2:14 PM
> > *To:* Marc Goodner
> > *Cc:* ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* [ws-rx-editors] Request for updating the targets in the 
> > issues list
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Marc,
> > 
> > Would you be able to update the targets in the issues list 
> with more 
> > meaningful references? What we label is core is not really 
> "core" per 
> > se. I would prefer to get the deliverables represented as 
> the targets so 
> > that we can keep track of our work.
> > 
> >  For example Issue 001 relates to the policy spec, ditto 
> i013, i016/17 
> > apply to both targets...
> > 
> > It is easier to keep track of the changes that way.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > --umit
> > 
> >  
> > 
>