[SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com>]

I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec,
migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create requirements to
change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My preference is
to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so that we
can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My suggestion is
that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include say "[
2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.

Anyone have any better ideas?

Regards,

Geoff.

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com>]

On 17/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Or open the Component list and select the "C++ Specification" category
> that I created last week to help track the C++ spec related issues  :)
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
OK. That' s a decision. I will mark JIRAs raised because of the 2.1 spec as
being both the "C++ SDO" and "C++ Specification" components.

Regards,

Geoff.

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>]

Pete Robbins wrote:
> Actually you may have noticed we don't prefix the Jira summaries at the
> moment ;-) Maybe we should spread this discussion...
>
> On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Whatever you like. You don't see the component in the Jira created
>> message
>> > so maybe we should put this in there.
>>
>>
>> That's a good point. OK, I'm persuaded. I'll use [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec]
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Geoff.
>>
>>
>> Or... get Jira to add it in
>> > automagically if anyone knows how??
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs
>> will
>> > > already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are
>> > easy
>> > > enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to
>> > > clutter
>> > > the summary too much.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Geoff.
>> > >
>> > > On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you
>> raise
>> > > one
>> > > > you can select SDO C++ and specification.
>> > > > Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 
>> 2.1Spec]
>> > as
>> > > > the
>> > > > specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.
>> > > >
>> > > > Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes
>> we,
>> > > > Tuscany, want to see in the specs...
>> > > >
>> > > > Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] 
>> summary
>> > > prefix
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java
>> spec,
>> > > > > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create
>> > requirements
>> > > > to
>> > > > > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My
>> > > preference
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly 
>> labelled
>> so
>> > > > that
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My
>> > > suggestion
>> > > > is
>> > > > > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would
>> include
>> > > say
>> > > > > "[
>> > > > > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Anyone have any better ideas?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Geoff.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Pete
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pete
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Or open the Component list and select the "C++ Specification" category 
that I created last week to help track the C++ spec related issues  :)

-- 
Jean-Sebastien


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Actually you may have noticed we don't prefix the Jira summaries at the
moment ;-) Maybe we should spread this discussion...

On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever you like. You don't see the component in the Jira created
> message
> > so maybe we should put this in there.
>
>
> That's a good point. OK, I'm persuaded. I'll use [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec]
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoff.
>
>
> Or... get Jira to add it in
> > automagically if anyone knows how??
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs
> will
> > > already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are
> > easy
> > > enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to
> > > clutter
> > > the summary too much.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> > > On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you
> raise
> > > one
> > > > you can select SDO C++ and specification.
> > > > Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1Spec]
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes
> we,
> > > > Tuscany, want to see in the specs...
> > > >
> > > > Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary
> > > prefix
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java
> spec,
> > > > > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create
> > requirements
> > > > to
> > > > > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My
> > > preference
> > > > > is
> > > > > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled
> so
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My
> > > suggestion
> > > > is
> > > > > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would
> include
> > > say
> > > > > "[
> > > > > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone have any better ideas?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Pete

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com>]

On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever you like. You don't see the component in the Jira created message
> so maybe we should put this in there.


That's a good point. OK, I'm persuaded. I'll use [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec]

Regards,

Geoff.


Or... get Jira to add it in
> automagically if anyone knows how??
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs will
> > already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are
> easy
> > enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to
> > clutter
> > the summary too much.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Geoff.
> >
> > On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you raise
> > one
> > > you can select SDO C++ and specification.
> > > Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec]
> as
> > > the
> > > specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.
> > >
> > > Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes we,
> > > Tuscany, want to see in the specs...
> > >
> > > Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary
> > prefix
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec,
> > > > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create
> requirements
> > > to
> > > > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My
> > preference
> > > > is
> > > > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My
> > suggestion
> > > is
> > > > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include
> > say
> > > > "[
> > > > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone have any better ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Geoff.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
>

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Whatever you like. You don't see the component in the Jira created message
so maybe we should put this in there. Or... get Jira to add it in
automagically if anyone knows how??

Cheers,


On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs will
> already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are easy
> enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to
> clutter
> the summary too much.
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoff.
>
> On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you raise
> one
> > you can select SDO C++ and specification.
> > Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] as
> > the
> > specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.
> >
> > Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes we,
> > Tuscany, want to see in the specs...
> >
> > Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary
> prefix
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec,
> > > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create requirements
> > to
> > > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My
> preference
> > > is
> > > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so
> > that
> > > we
> > > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My
> suggestion
> > is
> > > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include
> say
> > > "[
> > > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
> > >
> > > Anyone have any better ideas?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Pete

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com>]

Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs will
already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are easy
enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to clutter
the summary too much.

Regards,

Geoff.

On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you raise one
> you can select SDO C++ and specification.
> Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] as
> the
> specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.
>
> Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes we,
> Tuscany, want to see in the specs...
>
> Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary prefix
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec,
> > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create requirements
> to
> > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My preference
> > is
> > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so
> that
> > we
> > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My suggestion
> is
> > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include say
> > "[
> > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
> >
> > Anyone have any better ideas?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Geoff.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
>

Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you raise one
you can select SDO C++ and specification.
Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] as the
specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca.

Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes we,
Tuscany, want to see in the specs...

Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary prefix

Cheers,


On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec,
> migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create requirements to
> change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My preference
> is
> to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so that
> we
> can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My suggestion is
> that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include say
> "[
> 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field.
>
> Anyone have any better ideas?
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoff.
>
>


-- 
Pete