[drmaa-wg] GridForge Tracker Status Codes

[Peter Troeger]

Hello,

... caution, academic accuracy ;-) ...

I would propose the following values for the "Status" field in the DRMAA
GridForge trackers. Please note that "Open", "Closed", and "Pending" are
mandatory in GridForge, so we have to integrate them somehow in our
workflow:

-- snip

"Open": This is a new unconfirmed issue, not recognized / discussed so
far in the group.

"Pending": The issue is under discussion, but there is no formal
decision so far. The tracker item comments should reflect the current
status of discussion, either by text or by references to the DRMAA
mailing list archive.

"Delayed": The group agreed upon the fact that this issue will not make
it to the current major release of the according specification document.
Further discussions are delayed to a later point in time.

"Resolved": The group agreed on a final resolution, but this is so far
not reflected in any document. The comments for the tracker item should
clearly describe the resolution, or refer to an according DRMAA mailing
list archive entry.

"Rejected": The group agreed upon the fact that this is not an issue.

"Fixed": The group agreed on a final resolution, which was applied to
the according specification document. This new version of the document
is not public so far.

"Closed": The group agreed on a final resolution. The latest public
version of the document contains the according changes. The issue record
is only kept for historical reasons.

-- snip

Status changes would be possible according to the following rules:

Open -> Pending || Delayed || Resolved || Invalid
Pending -> Delayed || Resolved || Invalid
Delayed -> Pending
Resolved -> Fixed
Invalid ->
Fixed -> Closed
Closed ->

This workflow ensures that the group as a whole needs only to look on
"Open" and "Pending" issues. Usually, there would be only "Pending"
issues, since most discussions start on the mailing list. The document
editor is also enabled to track his progress.
I would propose to prohibit the re-opening of issues. Instead, a new
follow-up issue should be created.

Any comments ? When we have something like an agreement, I will change
the existing issues accordingly. The according description text will be
available in the wiki.

Regards,
Peter.