Another approach for tracking fixed OASIS issues in Tuscany could be to put the OASIS issue number in the heading of the JIRAs. This way, we would not need to track a different list and the JIRA content would contain the detail of discussions, etc.
On 4/1/08, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TUSCANY-2164 describes an issue that has been resolved in OASIS > as ASSEMBLY-27. The current implementation is correct according to > the OSOA 1.0 specs, but there are good reasons to change it to > align with the OASIS resolution of this issue. This raises the > general question of how Tuscany should handle differences between > the OSOA and OASIS specs. > > Changes made by OASIS can fall into the following categories: > 1. Fixing clear errors in the spec. > 2. Clarfication of ambiguities or inconsistencies. > 3. Minor improvements. > 4. Major changes. > > For categories 1 and 2, Tuscany is incorporating these on an > ongoing basis. For category 4, I'd suggest that we hold off on > these for now until the OASIS work gets further along. For > category 3, I think we should look at these changes on a > case by case basis and decide whether to incorporate them. > > For all categories, I think it would be useful to maintain a > Wiki page that lists the OASIS issue resolutions that are currently > incorporated in the Tuscany SCA Java implementation. > > For OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-27 (TUSCANY-2164), I think the OASIS change > is an improvement and we should implement it in Tuscany. > > What do others think about any or all of the above? > > Simon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
