[drmaa-wg] GridForge Tracker Status Codes

[Rajic, Hrabri]

This sounds good to me Peter.   It covers my use case: change made in
the doc but not accepted yet by the group formally.

It will take some time getting used to the terminology ... it might need
posting somewhere visible and close to the trackers.

Cheers

Hrabri

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of
>Peter Troeger
>Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:33 PM
>To: DRMAA Working Group
>Subject: [drmaa-wg] 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.