Hi Steve,
On 07/21/09 05:15 PM, Bing BJ Yin wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
We will update the specification ASAP.
Please do not do it before the new design has been reviewed and approved
by QA and UX, as I have mentioned in my previous email.
No issue for commitment. If need be
I can create one. Thanks.
Yes, we need an issue for this, when you open one please set me ( mav )
in CC-field.
Additionally it is a good practice to add issue number to the commit
comments, like
"#i<issue number># <text comment>"
That allows in future to find the related to the change issue easily.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
Best Regards,
Steve Yin
-------------------------------------
Symphony Common App and Performance
IBM Corporation | Lotus Software
Tel: 86-10-82454405
Email: [email protected]
Notes: Bing BJ Yin/China/IBM
Address: 2F, Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.
8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193,
P.R.China
From:
Mikhail Voytenko <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Date:
2009-07-21 21:32
Subject:
Re: [sw-discussion] Removed IBM(C) from IBM modified files in CWS
wordencryption
Hi all,
Sorry for the small delay with the integration.
The cws was rebased on DEV300_m51, it took a little bit more time than
expected because of local problems with the rebase process. Additionally
I had a one week vacation, that has also delayed handling of the cws.
The only remaining task currently is to update the specification ( the
implementation should be reviewed by QA- or UX-engineer before ). After
that the cws will be ready for QA. I think the cws will get ready for QA
status this week.
By the way, which issue was used to commit the changes to the cws?
Best regards,
Mikhail.
On 07/11/09 05:13 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi *,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ming Fei Jia<[email protected]>
wrote:
Mathias,
Any status update for the integration? We are free to privide any
support
if needed. Thanks.?
The wordencryption cws is
* not set to public
That indeed should be changed.
* is still in state "new"
This is fine as we are still in the review state.
* doesn't have any dates nor target-release set
This is fine also as it doesn't make sense to set any dates until you
know if there is still something to be done.
So I think that this wasn't the kind of status update that Ming Fei Ja
expected. :-)
Ciao,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
