> "Mark" == Mark J Nelson writes:
Mark> It seems like "we can tell that there's an approved RTI for this
Mark> bug, but we can't get its synopsis from b.o.o" should result in
Mark> passing the rtichk, on the assumption that such RTIs are coming
Mark> from inside SWAN, and that an internal pbc
Danek Duvall writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:39:28AM -0600, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
>
>> Comment checking already involves validation of synopses and case titles
>> against b.o.o and arc.py, respectively. I don't want to conflate that
>> here, so this implies a class of bugs that won't be v
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:39:28AM -0600, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
> Comment checking already involves validation of synopses and case titles
> against b.o.o and arc.py, respectively. I don't want to conflate that
> here, so this implies a class of bugs that won't be verifiable externally.
>
> It
I added Val and Alan, because it helps scope the other conversation.
So please use this note for replies, or add them manually. Thanks.
My responses to Rich inline below.
--Mark
Richard Lowe wrote:
> "Mark J. Nelson" writes:
>
>> So the directive is to move the ON gate without waiting for o
"Mark J. Nelson" writes:
> So the directive is to move the ON gate without waiting for or
> coordinating with the RTI or defect tracking folks.
>
> While I think that the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts,
> I also agree that herein lies our greatest (only, perhaps) chance of
> g
So the directive is to move the ON gate without waiting for or
coordinating with the RTI or defect tracking folks.
While I think that the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts,
I also agree that herein lies our greatest (only, perhaps) chance of
getting this ("open development") done
