status state

[Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>]

Hi,
i am looking at how we use status.xml, and these are my impressions:

1) I always like it status.xml to be on the root of out svn space, so
when you make a change you could modify it over there. Can we change
that back?

2) I tried to put the document type of status and I have found around
400 validation errors. they are mostly on the context attributes.

The valid attributes are "build,code,docs,admin,design"

My proposal is to add documentation about the scope of every single
attribute ie:
build ---> our build system and tools that make the sofware
code  ---> xsl,sitemaps and java code that we use
docs  ---> our website, and documentation of the project.
design --> ¿?¿? skins maybe?

 out of that I am happy to help to convert all of those.


Cheers,
cheche

Re: status state

[Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> I'm still running away, so feel free ;-)
> 

done it. I did my best.. but mostly I added context="code"
I have commented out the <issues> element as there is not on the schema.
 Anyone know anything about it?

Cheers,
cheche

Re: status state

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Hi,
> i am looking at how we use status.xml, and these are my impressions:
> 
> 1) I always like it status.xml to be on the root of out svn space, so
> when you make a change you could modify it over there. Can we change
> that back?

I have no feelings in this whatsoever.

> 2) I tried to put the document type of status and I have found around
> 400 validation errors. they are mostly on the context attributes.

:-))

I did exactly the same thing and decided it was too big a job to fix in 
the middle of the night when I did it, so I ran away ;-)

> The valid attributes are "build,code,docs,admin,design"
> 
> My proposal is to add documentation about the scope of every single
> attribute ie:
> build ---> our build system and tools that make the sofware
> code  ---> xsl,sitemaps and java code that we use
> docs  ---> our website, and documentation of the project.
> design --> ¿?¿? skins maybe?

I'd put skins under code, especially with view/viewhelper coming along 
which blurs the distinction even more.

design would be things like refactoring?

>  out of that I am happy to help to convert all of those.

I'm still running away, so feel free ;-)

Ross