On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:59, Karsten Wade wrote: > I think there's a step/process missing in the middle there. I just > encountered having two active versions of the "same" document and need > another doc-bug for it. I got to thinking about how this could be > handled in the process, and so am proposing a solution, presented as a > *new* lifecycle for a document, DocA: > > 1. Open BugA1 for DocA while you are writing it, assigned to the > in-progress doc tracker bug, TrackProgress. BugA1 is the bug you pass > to editors, QA and release, etc. as defined in the process. > > 2. When ready to post, reassign BugA1 to TrackRelease, the release > tracking bug. Which makes one 'name' align with two items? > > 3. When DocA is released against a version of Fedora, the associated > BugA1 is sent back to TrackProgress. It remains in TrackProgress while > it is being maintained. And its purpose is... Sounds like the sort of 'what if' guessing that occurs? > > 4. At some point, Fedora releases a new version, and DocA is going to be > branched for the new version into DocA1. At this point, BugA2 is opened > for DocA2, the new version. BugA2 and BugA1 can now work in parallel, > each pointing at a specific version of a doc in CVS. Suggest a KISS principle is far more appropriate. If it happens, deal with it. > Pluses? Minuses? I'll fix this into the XML process doc if it makes > sense. Not to me Karsten. Sounds like ISO9000 on steroids. Processes for the sake of it? -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
