Date: Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Time:
12:00 PM Eastern, 9:00 AM Pacific, 6:00 PM Zurich (contact
SteveSpeicher if you'd like to participate)
Previous minutes: CmMeetings20120215
Agenda
Recurring agenda items:
Main agenda items:
Assigned scenario owners:
Assigned specification owners
Previous Action Items:
- VijayAggarwal to complete list of ITOpsToDev scenarios and prioritize
- SteveSpeicher - take feedback from Andre around implementation guidance wiki page, etc
- SteveSpeicher - 2010 / CM 2.0 Retrospective - review action items from last meeting
- SofiaYeung - State transitions between hierarchies of CRs - Sofia to draft some scenarios
- SofiaYeung - needs to do batch updating of CRs. This has been discussed off and on, and there are
Next meetings:
- April 11 - continue with 3.0 items
Minutes
Working Group and Community Updates
- VincentPhan? joining the CM workgroup from ClearQuest development.
- Kartik: W3C Community Groups Update - Pilot put on hold indefinitely due to legal obstacles. CM working group will remain on current infrastructure.
- SteveSpeicher: Looking at alternatives for link labels.
- SteveSpeicher: Should we revisit property mapping spreadsheet of various CM tools? Will discuss via email and queue for a future meeting.
State Transitions Review
- RobertElves added states of a task to ScenariosMylyn.
- Open Issue: Do we need to define qualifiers on some actions like resolve or mark duplicate?
- Open Issue: What to do with intermediate states on transitions.
- RobertElves: Are we only exposing standard actions or can providers expose additional actions in the resource?
- SteveSpeicher: Current intent is to expose a set of standard actions and allow providers to expose additional actions.
- SamPadgett: What resource do you get back when performing a GET on an action URI? An Action resource with a title, shape, and possibly other properties?
- VincentPhan? : For ClearQuest, it will be difficult to provide a shape since we don't know what the shape should look like until we begin the action.
- SamitMehta asked if we can add additional information to error responses about what fields failed validation on state transition errors.
- SamPadgett: Delegated approach as fallback when headless state transition fails?
- SamitMehta: We should understand from Robert and Sofia what limitations the delegated approach has for IDE scenarios.
Attendees: SamPadgett, SteveSpeicher, SofiaYeung, RobertElves, SamitMehta, VincentPhan? , BrianSteele, Kartik
Regrets: EricRoy, VijayAggarwal, DaveSteinberg, MichaelFiedler
-- SamPadgett - 29 Feb 2012
Topic revision: r4 - 21 Mar 2012 - 20:46:20 -
SamPadgett