On Dec 28, 2008, at 5:23 , Tom Lazar wrote:
i particularly like the notion of using workflow states as
'reminders' to make sure aspects aren't missed.
OTOH, workflow states are serial, and it'd be a shame to force teams
to do their evaluations in a specific order.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 14:33 , Tres Seaver wrote:
OTOH, workflow states are serial, and it'd be a shame to force teams
to do their evaluations in a specific order.
You can actually have multiple workflows for a given type. I may be
the
only person who has ever actually used the feature, but
On 27.12.2008, at 23:28, Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0800, Ross Patterson
m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
One way to keep these cross-checks lightweight might be to start
with a
statement of impact. There are code changes, for example, that
have no
UI impact. In such
Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu
writes:
The exact way to involve the UI and documentation team needs to be
defined. I think we should write up the process first and then sent it
for comments to the two others team. We can incorporate their feedback
in terms of when and how they like to
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0800, Ross Patterson
m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
One way to keep these cross-checks lightweight might be to start with a
statement of impact. There are code changes, for example, that have no
UI impact. In such cases, it would be fast and more painless if a PLIP
