- Original Message -
From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: When adding new function
>
> Glyn wrote:
> > Also, I wonder if we should be consistently using the cvs contents such
Subject: When adding new function
In "RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/test/wsdl/faults FaultService.wsdl
FaultServiceSoapBindingImpl.java FaultServiceTestCase.java", Tom wrote:
>The text of the submit should be captured in the architecture docs that
Glyn has b
Glyn wrote:
> Also, I wonder if we should be consistently using the cvs contents such as
> the docs to describe facts and the cvs commit logs to summarise *changes*
> to the facts? I don't like seeing useful design notes get 'hidden' in cvs
> logs.
Glyn and I must be on the same wavelength today
>Not only do I agree, I would VOTE on getting **significant**
>changes/function documented (rough would be find) and APPROVED
>before implementing.
I agree in principle, but I wouldn't like to commit speculative design
changes into cvs and then seek approval as this would render the cvs
document
CTED]
M@IBMGB cc:
Subject: When adding new function
05/29/2002 0
In "RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/test/wsdl/faults FaultService.wsdl
FaultServiceSoapBindingImpl.java FaultServiceTestCase.java", Tom wrote:
>The text of the submit should be captured in the architecture docs that
Glyn has been working on.
I'd be very happy for Rich to incorporate his text into
