Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance
On 17/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[SDO for C++] How to raise JIRAs for 2.1 spec compliance
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.
