I like option b).
But even if something is resolved, say
in ODF 1.2, we still may need to add that issue to an errata document for
an earlier version.
I think the important thing is, for
each defect reported, to ascertain which versions of the ODF standard it
applies.
Maybe we can add columns to the spreadsheet,
like; ODF 1.0, ODF 1.0 (second edition), ODF 1.1, and ODF 1.2 Draft, and
indicate Yes/No (or 1/0) whether the problem occurs in that version.
-Rob
___________________________
Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group
email:
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/
wrote on 04/17/2008 04:59:41
AM:
> Hi,
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Rob,
> >
> > +1!
> >
> > One suggestion: Can you or Michael include the 10 that are to
be
> > discussed in the agenda? Thinking for some of them it would be
helpful
> > to take a few minutes before the meeting to get familiar with
the
> > comment, etc.
>
> Yes, this sounds like a good idea.
>
> One more note: I had a look at the first comments in the list, and
> noticed that some of them have been resolved in the ODF 1.0 2nd edition
> specification already. This means that we do not only have to differ
> between the 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 versions, but also between the 1.0 and
1.0
> 2nd edition versions. The good news is that the number of comments
we
> have to process is actually a little bit lower.
>
> An open question is how we identify those items that are resolved
> already in one of the specifications. I think we have two options.
>
> a) We (Rob, Patrick for the comments from Japan, and me) check
> immediately which items are resolved so that we can mark them as
> resolved before we process the list.
> b) We (Rob and me) check whether an item is resolved already when
we set
> up the agenda. If we notice that an item is resolved, we state that
in
> the agenda, but skip to the next one that is unresolved until we have
10
> items that are not resolved yet.
>
> To be able to start with a review on Monday I suggest that we start
with
> option b), but maybe switch to option a) later.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Hope you are having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> I've updated the spreadsheet listing our public comments.
It is now
> >>> complete from May 1st, 2005.
> >>> We have 180 comments to go through. I expect that
100 or so have
> >>> probably
> >>> already been resolved by Patrick as overlapping with
the SC34 defect
> >>> report. So maybe we have more like 80 to deal with.
I'd propose
> >>> that we
> >>> try to tackle 10 of them at every TC call and plan on
finishing these
> >>> within the next 8 weeks.
> >>>
> >>> Sound like a plan? Anyone have a better idea? ;-)
> >>
> >> Yes, sounds like a plan.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
> Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg
55
> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
> http://sun.com/staroffice
+49 40 23646 500
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
> D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
