Are you sure about the SDO C++ part in square brackets? These JIRAs will already have their "component" property set to "C++ SDO" so they are easy enough to identify as belonging to SDO for C++. I was trying not to clutter the summary too much.
Regards, Geoff. On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff, there is a "specification" category for Jiras so when you raise one you can select SDO C++ and specification. Prefixing the summary field is a good idea.. maybe [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] as the specification classification covers Java/C++ and sdo/sca. Actually I'm not sure if the specification category is for changes we, Tuscany, want to see in the specs... Just raise them against SDO C++ with the [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] summary prefix Cheers, On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am working through the draft 2.1 version of the SDO for Java spec, > migrating the changes into the C++ spec. That will create requirements to > change the SDO implementation to comply with the new spec. My preference > is > to raise JIRAs for these items, with those JIRAs clearly labelled so that > we > can distinguish them from all the rest should we need to. My suggestion is > that we do that in the summary field so that the JIRAs would include say > "[ > 2.1 spec]" at the beginning of the summary field. > > Anyone have any better ideas? > > Regards, > > Geoff. > > -- Pete
