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
