Re: [ws-rx-editors] Request for updating the targets in the issueslist

+1

Does the list allow the an issue to have a target of 'wsrm' *and* wsrmp?

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> Sure, changing the targets to mean an actual deliverable makes a lot 
> more sense. This was another carryover from the source schema I used for 
> the issue list. They seemed more conceptual than related to actual 
> deliverables.
> 
>  
> 
> Here would be my proposed list:
> 
>     * wsrm
>     * wsrm-schema
>     * wsrm-wsdl
>     * wsrmp
>     * wsrmp-schema
> 
>  
> 
> Am I missing anything or does that look right?
> 
>  
> 
> Also, if an issue is the schema or wsdl has an error the target is 
> obvious. If the issue involves a change to the spec that impacts the 
> schema or wsdl it seems that we don’t need to log that in the target. I 
> would trust the editors would see the connection without having both the 
> spec and the schema tagged as a target in such cases.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2005 2:14 PM
> *To:* Marc Goodner
> *Cc:* 
> *Subject:* [ws-rx-editors] Request for updating the targets in the 
> issues list
> 
>  
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Would you be able to update the targets in the issues list with more 
> meaningful references? What we label is core is not really "core" per 
> se. I would prefer to get the deliverables represented as the targets so 
> that we can keep track of our work.
> 
>  For example Issue 001 relates to the policy spec, ditto i013, i016/17 
> apply to both targets…
> 
> It is easier to keep track of the changes that way.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --umit
> 
>  
>