Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

mwatson2
I should have addressed this only to editors / chairs.

In addition, it might be useful to have a "Final Review" label. We would replace "needs implementation" with this label when there is a Pull Request available for the issue.

Thoughts ?

...Mark

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:
We have V1NonBlocking issues, some of which are substantial but only nice-to-have and some of which are purely editorial. I wonder if we should disambiguate them ?

V1Editorial ? I assume we can address such purely editorial issues after June 9th.

...Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

Paul Cotton

>V1Editorial

 

I agree that it might be useful for the Editors to prioritize the V1Nonblocking issues AFTER all the V1 work is done.  But maybe we should consider adding a separate Editorial tag?

 

 

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: May 13, 2016 8:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

I should have addressed this only to editors / chairs.

In addition, it might be useful to have a "Final Review" label. We would replace "needs implementation" with this label when there is a Pull Request available for the issue.

Thoughts ?

...Mark

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:
We have V1NonBlocking issues, some of which are substantial but only nice-to-have and some of which are purely editorial. I wonder if we should disambiguate them ?

V1Editorial ? I assume we can address such purely editorial issues after June 9th.

...Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

Jerry Smith (IEP)

Presumably V1Editorial changes would be accepted after June 9th?  Or even June 16th, since they wouldn’t reset the CRs?  When might we cut them off?

 

Jerry

 

From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Mark Watson <[hidden email]>; Jerry Smith (IEP) <[hidden email]>; David Dorwin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Matt Wolenetz <[hidden email]>; Philippe Le Hégaret <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

>V1Editorial

 

I agree that it might be useful for the Editors to prioritize the V1Nonblocking issues AFTER all the V1 work is done.  But maybe we should consider adding a separate Editorial tag?

 

 

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: May 13, 2016 8:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

I should have addressed this only to editors / chairs.

 

In addition, it might be useful to have a "Final Review" label. We would replace "needs implementation" with this label when there is a Pull Request available for the issue.

 

Thoughts ?

 

...Mark

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have V1NonBlocking issues, some of which are substantial but only nice-to-have and some of which are purely editorial. I wonder if we should disambiguate them ?

 

V1Editorial ? I assume we can address such purely editorial issues after June 9th.

 

...Mark

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

Paul Cotton

> Presumably V1Editorial changes would be accepted after June 9th

 

Yes. 

 

> Or even June 16th, since they wouldn’t reset the CRs? 

 

We might want to leave the candidate CR drafts stable thru the CfC period but that can be done by putting them in a separate stable location.

 

>When might we cut them off?

 

I believe we can continue making editorial changes until just before Aug 2 when we lock down the candidate Proposed Recommendations.

 

/paulc

 

 

From: Jerry Smith (IEP)
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:09 PM
To: Paul Cotton <[hidden email]>; Mark Watson <[hidden email]>; David Dorwin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Matt Wolenetz <[hidden email]>; Philippe Le Hégaret <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

Presumably V1Editorial changes would be accepted after June 9th?  Or even June 16th, since they wouldn’t reset the CRs?  When might we cut them off?

 

Jerry

 

From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Mark Watson <[hidden email]>; Jerry Smith (IEP) <[hidden email]>; David Dorwin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Matt Wolenetz <[hidden email]>; Philippe Le Hégaret <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

>V1Editorial

 

I agree that it might be useful for the Editors to prioritize the V1Nonblocking issues AFTER all the V1 work is done.  But maybe we should consider adding a separate Editorial tag?

 

 

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: May 13, 2016 8:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

I should have addressed this only to editors / chairs.

 

In addition, it might be useful to have a "Final Review" label. We would replace "needs implementation" with this label when there is a Pull Request available for the issue.

 

Thoughts ?

 

...Mark

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have V1NonBlocking issues, some of which are substantial but only nice-to-have and some of which are purely editorial. I wonder if we should disambiguate them ?

 

V1Editorial ? I assume we can address such purely editorial issues after June 9th.

 

...Mark

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

Paul Cotton
In reply to this post by Jerry Smith (IEP)

> For example, #181 isn't meant to change behavior, but it is fairly large.

 

Given that ALL “substantive changes” must be completed by June 9, we definitely should be concentrating our current efforts on the open issues that may/will cause “substantive changes”.  Let’s leave any editorial items until after June 9 when we can continue to editorially improve the CR specs.

 

/paulc

 

From: David Dorwin [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:51 PM
To: Jerry Smith (IEP) <[hidden email]>
Cc: Paul Cotton <[hidden email]>; Mark Watson <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Matt Wolenetz <[hidden email]>; Philippe Le Hégaret <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

I support this to help us organize and prioritize. I do somewhat worry that it will mean one more decision to make or debate, though. For example, #181 isn't meant to change behavior, but it is fairly large.

 

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Jerry Smith (IEP) <[hidden email]> wrote:

Presumably V1Editorial changes would be accepted after June 9th?  Or even June 16th, since they wouldn’t reset the CRs?  When might we cut them off?

 

Jerry

 

From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Mark Watson <[hidden email]>; Jerry Smith (IEP) <[hidden email]>; David Dorwin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Matt Wolenetz <[hidden email]>; Philippe Le Hégaret <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

>V1Editorial

 

I agree that it might be useful for the Editors to prioritize the V1Nonblocking issues AFTER all the V1 work is done.  But maybe we should consider adding a separate Editorial tag?

 

 

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: May 13, 2016 8:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Separate milestone for editorial issues ?

 

I should have addressed this only to editors / chairs.

 

In addition, it might be useful to have a "Final Review" label. We would replace "needs implementation" with this label when there is a Pull Request available for the issue.

 

Thoughts ?

 

...Mark

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have V1NonBlocking issues, some of which are substantial but only nice-to-have and some of which are purely editorial. I wonder if we should disambiguate them ?

 

V1Editorial ? I assume we can address such purely editorial issues after June 9th.

 

...Mark