[drmaa-wg] Request for comments

[Roger Brobst]

This workflow looks quite reasonable;
I think we should adopt it.

-Roger

In a previous e-mail, Peter Troeger wrote:
> 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.
> >