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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
