← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
RE: Issue "states"? (was: [security-services] Updated Issues List )
Title: RE: Issue "states"? (was: [security-services] Updated Issues List) I previously stated that I intended to close issues with a resolution of "deferred" and we would pick up the deferred ones when work on the next version starts. I actually can't remember why I prefered this to deferred status, so I guess we can do it your way instead. Hal > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Hodges [mailto:] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:22 PM > To: > Subject: Issue "states"? (was: [security-services] Updated > Issues List) > > > Presently the issues-07 doc employs two states for issues: > open or closed. > > We've danced around the topic of issue "states" on concalls, > and a notion of > "deferred" has been at least mentioned. > > So, folding "deferred" in with "open" and "closed", what do > folks, especially > Hal, think of these issue state semantics.. > > open: the issue's been at least raised. the one raising it > is nominal > champion > unless the mantle is passed (e.g. by someone > volunteering and/or the > chairs > tugging sleeves). > > closed: as Hal puts it "we're never going to talk about it > anymore". > > deferred: we're not going to address this issue in the > present in-process > SAML > specification version, but we want to keep the > issue around for > consideration in future versions. The champion is > preserved, and > can be changed in the same manner as open issues. > > > ? > > So, for example, there's likely at least a few issues in > issues-07 that we > ought to "defer" rather than simply "close". > > And we want to move open issues to either "closed" or > "deferred" because we > need to not have any open issues in order to enter Last Call. > > thanks, > > JeffH > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread