Thanks for your reply, Lou.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Lou Burnard
Hi Raff
Sorry for delay in responding. While I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the work you and Elli have put into this, I am not certain that we're likely to be able to keep up with such a complicated label set, particularly if you're expecting tickets to be categorised when they are created.
I'm more optimistic about our organization skills. It's only four categories, I'd hardly call this a complicated label set. Also it's ok to not label tickets appropriately, others can always add and remove as needed at any time.
On 13/12/15 21:59, Raffaele Viglianti wrote:
For example a new ticket about a badly misguiding example for the the "div" element would probably get these labels:
"Component: Core schema"
What does "component" mean here? The "core" is the name of a TEI module, and <div> is actually not defined there but in textstructure, so I guess you mean "core schema" in some other sense. But what? And what about things that are proposals for new elements or modules? What component do they go in?
Point taken. By core we mean "principal", "main", not the module. It is as opposed to any customization schema. We could say "Component: main schema" instead, or "Component: TEI all".
"Type: Bug"
Is a "misleading example" really a "bug" ?
It's debatable, but if someone thought it was misleading enough to cause most users to misuse TEI, I'd call it a bug.
"Priority: High"
I suppose this is clear enough, but whose priorities are we talking about?
This is relative, of course. It really depends on how quickly we want to get it done; the reasons for this will vary.
"Status: Needs Discussion"
Is this the same as the old Red/Amber/Green ? If so, why change it?
It is, and we changed these names during out F2F, in fact. I think they are clearer than Red/Amber/Green, but I'm also fine with keeping the old names.
There are a couple of extra labels that don't fit this system:
- "sf-automigrated": identifies tickets migrated from SF. We suggest to keep it.
Why is that useful? I would have thought the date would do to indicate it, if needed.
Fair point, I'm ok with getting rid of this, then. Elli, what do you think?
- "SIG": identifies tickets about SIG organization (maybe we need a
category for less technical discussions, "meta"?).
SIG is fine by me. "Meta" has a different signification for me: I'd expect it to label tickets which are about ODD for example.
Then we have a couple of specific questions for you:
- Should we keep labels specific to each chapter in the guidelines? (e.g. MS, ND, PH, etc). We think they should go away. But if we keep them we can get group them under "Component: Guidelines", e.g. "Component: Guidelines: MS".
Those labels were created during the run up to P5. They weren't used much then, and I don't think they're much use now. Nuke em.
Sounds good to me!
But now I am puzzled again about what you mean by "component". We are only talking about the Guidelines, aren't we? So how come it's a component?
By component we mean one of our points of focus for development; e.g. the Guidelines (prose issues, mostly), the "main" schema development (things that we'd fix in the ODD, mostly), tools (things that should be moved to the Stylesheet repo, or are related to some other tool we maintain). Thanks again for your comments - looking forward to more discussion. Best, Raff
- "sf_creator-*" tickets were introduced to facilitate finding migrated
tickets by their original SF creator. Since that information is also recorded in the text of the ticket, we think they should go away. Thoughts?
Remove them: fine by me
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived