Pete Robbins wrote:
Actually you may have noticed we don't prefix the Jira summaries at the
moment ;-) Maybe we should spread this discussion...
On 17/10/06, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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++
2.1Spec]
> 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
>
>
Or open the Component list and select the "C++ Specification" category
that I created last week to help track the C++ spec related issues :)
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
