On 17/10/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whatever you like. You don't see the component in the Jira created message so maybe we should put this in there.
That's a good point. OK, I'm persuaded. I'll use [SDO C++ 2.1 Spec] Regards, Geoff. Or... get Jira to add it in
automagically if anyone knows how?? Cheers, On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > -- Pete
