So then the issues are moved
against the new MC spec and that result reported back to the PR issue filer. We
can then continue to progress RM/RMP and still report back to the issue filer
what was done in the MC spec for their issue. Makes sense, and it has the
benefit of less work for the issue list maintainer. J
From: Patil, Sanjay
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Marc Goodner; Doug Davis; Paul Fremantle
Cc:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: RX PR issue list update and MC issues
Why don't we simply add a new value (say
"ws-rm-mc", in addition the existing "ws-rm" and
"ws-rmp") for the prototype column and use that value for
all MC related issues?
-- Sanjay
From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, Jan 09, 2007 10:15 AM
To: Doug Davis; Patil, Sanjay; Paul Fremantle
Cc:
Subject: RX PR issue list update and MC issues
Before I ask to have this posted let’s do a sanity check.
Since this is the PR issue list I marked all the MC issues as pending per
moving them to a new spec and noted they will be carried over.
For the current TC discussion of the MC issues while it is a
TC doc I suggest a new issue list here:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/mc/Issues.xml
I prefer this doing this over reusing the old pre-PR RM
issue list as there is new schema since then that is a lot easier to work with.
I assume all of them will just get new issue numbers in order as I copy them
over. Maybe we could use a convention like mc001 rather than the current i001
form to distinguish them from the PR issue list numbers.
I assume we would also continue to use the current RM PR
issue list for the next PR round of RM and even MC when it goes out.
Does that make sense? If yes then I’ll go ahead and get the
new issue list done and posted before this week’s call.
