[drmaa-wg] Request for comments

[Peter Troeger]

Dear DRMAA group members,

please comment the proposal below, since this is a blocker for  
Hrabri's further work on the spec improvement.

Thank you,
Peter.


Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

> Von: Peter Troeger <peter.troeger at hpi.uni-potsdam.de>
> Datum: 24. Januar 2006 20:32:50 MEZ
> An: DRMAA Working Group <drmaa-wg at gridforum.org>
> Betreff: GridForge Tracker Status Codes
>
> 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.
>
>
>