Proposal for re-organizing trackers
I've been talking with Jem about re-organizing the trackers and we agreed on the following proposal. If you have any comments or suggestions please respond. Background: OGSA-WG maintains one tracker per document per version, for a current total of 12 document trackers. (The number of artifacts per tracker vary.) Half of these trackers are for already published documents: they are marked 'closed' and will not be used again. Since many of our documents are likely to be revised again we'll have to set up more trackers. For example, work is already starting on a third version of the Glossary, the Roadmap is expected to be updated periodically and so on. Proposal: To keep the total number of trackers down and keep the tracker summary view usable the proposal is to re-organize the trackers so that each document has at most 2 trackers associated with it: an archival tracker and a current tracker. The archival tracker will hold artifacts of *all* past versions of that document. Artifacts will be tagged with an appropriate "Document Version" value so that it is clear which version they relate to (e.g., version 1.0, 1.5, etc). The current tracker will hold all new artifacts, including any artifacts that were deferred in previous versions. In terms of process, new artifacts will be put in the current tracker. When a document is published all closed artifacts from the current tracker are tagged with the document version and moved to the archival tracker; all deferred artifacts remain on the current tracker and are set back to the open state. Current tracker summary view: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/tracker/do/listTrackers/projects.ogsa-wg/trac... -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
Andreas and Jem, This sounds pretty good. I think I start with this approach in the Technical Strategy document activity as well. I may come to you for "how to create the version tag" question at some point. On 3 Oct 2006, at 06:13, Andreas Savva wrote:
I've been talking with Jem about re-organizing the trackers and we agreed on the following proposal. If you have any comments or suggestions please respond.
Background: OGSA-WG maintains one tracker per document per version, for a current total of 12 document trackers. (The number of artifacts per tracker vary.) Half of these trackers are for already published documents: they are marked 'closed' and will not be used again. Since many of our documents are likely to be revised again we'll have to set up more trackers. For example, work is already starting on a third version of the Glossary, the Roadmap is expected to be updated periodically and so on.
Proposal: To keep the total number of trackers down and keep the tracker summary view usable the proposal is to re-organize the trackers so that each document has at most 2 trackers associated with it: an archival tracker and a current tracker.
The archival tracker will hold artifacts of *all* past versions of that document. Artifacts will be tagged with an appropriate "Document Version" value so that it is clear which version they relate to (e.g., version 1.0, 1.5, etc). The current tracker will hold all new artifacts, including any artifacts that were deferred in previous versions.
In terms of process, new artifacts will be put in the current tracker. When a document is published all closed artifacts from the current tracker are tagged with the document version and moved to the archival tracker; all deferred artifacts remain on the current tracker and are set back to the open state.
Current tracker summary view: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/tracker/do/listTrackers/ projects.ogsa-wg/tracker -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
-- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
Here's what the latest proposal for the trackers looks like. (This is already done for the Glossary tracker if anyone wants to have a look.) 1. One tracker per document; instead of archival+current as in the original proposal 2. Use the 'Category' field to separate artifacts for different document versions; instead of defining a new version tag field. The main reason is that the Category field appears on the tracker summary view page so allows easy filtering. (AFAIK it is not possible--by mere humans--to change the tracker summary view to add new filter fields and using the detailed search page is too complicated as the main mechanism for narrowing views.) For example, the Glossary tracker has "Version 1.0," "Version 1.5," "Next version." defined as categories. 3. The process remains similar. New artifacts go in as "Next version" or the working version if one has been set; deferred artifacts from a previous version are moved to the next version and to open. The Glossary tracker has a three such artifacts. 4. Optionally use 'File releases' to associate artifacts with the release (version) they were reported in, and the release in which they were fixed. There is an automatic association between releases and two tracker fields (reported in release; fixed in release) so release names can be used without extra work. For example, for the Glossary I have created two (empty) releases for Glossary 1.0 and Glossary 1.5 and have associated Glossary artifacts to the release in which they were reported and the one they were fixed. (Some issues were reported in 1.0; deferred and fixed in 1.5) Andreas David Snelling wrote:
Andreas and Jem,
This sounds pretty good. I think I start with this approach in the Technical Strategy document activity as well. I may come to you for "how to create the version tag" question at some point.
On 3 Oct 2006, at 06:13, Andreas Savva wrote:
I've been talking with Jem about re-organizing the trackers and we agreed on the following proposal. If you have any comments or suggestions please respond.
Background: OGSA-WG maintains one tracker per document per version, for a current total of 12 document trackers. (The number of artifacts per tracker vary.) Half of these trackers are for already published documents: they are marked 'closed' and will not be used again. Since many of our documents are likely to be revised again we'll have to set up more trackers. For example, work is already starting on a third version of the Glossary, the Roadmap is expected to be updated periodically and so on.
Proposal: To keep the total number of trackers down and keep the tracker summary view usable the proposal is to re-organize the trackers so that each document has at most 2 trackers associated with it: an archival tracker and a current tracker.
The archival tracker will hold artifacts of *all* past versions of that document. Artifacts will be tagged with an appropriate "Document Version" value so that it is clear which version they relate to (e.g., version 1.0, 1.5, etc). The current tracker will hold all new artifacts, including any artifacts that were deferred in previous versions.
In terms of process, new artifacts will be put in the current tracker. When a document is published all closed artifacts from the current tracker are tagged with the document version and moved to the archival tracker; all deferred artifacts remain on the current tracker and are set back to the open state.
Current tracker summary view: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/tracker/do/listTrackers/projects.ogsa-wg/trac...
--Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
-- Take care:
Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
+44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
Thanks Andreas, New tracker usage is pretty nice. Is there any reason you do not add GFD.44 and GFD.81 to "file-releases"? Although it consumes extra storage space, I think file-release is designed for that way. Thanks again, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andreas Savva wrote:
Here's what the latest proposal for the trackers looks like. (This is already done for the Glossary tracker if anyone wants to have a look.)
1. One tracker per document; instead of archival+current as in the original proposal
2. Use the 'Category' field to separate artifacts for different document versions; instead of defining a new version tag field. The main reason is that the Category field appears on the tracker summary view page so allows easy filtering. (AFAIK it is not possible--by mere humans--to change the tracker summary view to add new filter fields and using the detailed search page is too complicated as the main mechanism for narrowing views.)
For example, the Glossary tracker has "Version 1.0," "Version 1.5," "Next version." defined as categories.
3. The process remains similar. New artifacts go in as "Next version" or the working version if one has been set; deferred artifacts from a previous version are moved to the next version and to open.
The Glossary tracker has a three such artifacts.
4. Optionally use 'File releases' to associate artifacts with the release (version) they were reported in, and the release in which they were fixed. There is an automatic association between releases and two tracker fields (reported in release; fixed in release) so release names can be used without extra work.
For example, for the Glossary I have created two (empty) releases for Glossary 1.0 and Glossary 1.5 and have associated Glossary artifacts to the release in which they were reported and the one they were fixed. (Some issues were reported in 1.0; deferred and fixed in 1.5)
Andreas
David Snelling wrote:
Andreas and Jem,
This sounds pretty good. I think I start with this approach in the Technical Strategy document activity as well. I may come to you for "how to create the version tag" question at some point.
On 3 Oct 2006, at 06:13, Andreas Savva wrote:
I've been talking with Jem about re-organizing the trackers and we agreed on the following proposal. If you have any comments or suggestions please respond.
Background: OGSA-WG maintains one tracker per document per version, for a current total of 12 document trackers. (The number of artifacts per tracker vary.) Half of these trackers are for already published documents: they are marked 'closed' and will not be used again. Since many of our documents are likely to be revised again we'll have to set up more trackers. For example, work is already starting on a third version of the Glossary, the Roadmap is expected to be updated periodically and so on.
Proposal: To keep the total number of trackers down and keep the tracker summary view usable the proposal is to re-organize the trackers so that each document has at most 2 trackers associated with it: an archival tracker and a current tracker.
The archival tracker will hold artifacts of *all* past versions of that document. Artifacts will be tagged with an appropriate "Document Version" value so that it is clear which version they relate to (e.g., version 1.0, 1.5, etc). The current tracker will hold all new artifacts, including any artifacts that were deferred in previous versions.
In terms of process, new artifacts will be put in the current tracker. When a document is published all closed artifacts from the current tracker are tagged with the document version and moved to the archival tracker; all deferred artifacts remain on the current tracker and are set back to the open state.
Current tracker summary view: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/tracker/do/listTrackers/projects.ogsa-wg/trac...
--Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg -- Take care:
Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
+44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
No particular reason, besides the obvious one that I was only looking at how to re-structure the trackers, and was not concerned with putting all the relevant files into each release. I would actually like to leave this job as an exercise for the document editor. Andreas Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Thanks Andreas,
New tracker usage is pretty nice.
Is there any reason you do not add GFD.44 and GFD.81 to "file-releases"? Although it consumes extra storage space, I think file-release is designed for that way.
Thanks again, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Andreas Savva wrote:
Here's what the latest proposal for the trackers looks like. (This is already done for the Glossary tracker if anyone wants to have a look.)
1. One tracker per document; instead of archival+current as in the original proposal
:
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
participants (3)
-
Andreas Savva -
David Snelling -
Hiro Kishimoto