This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.

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


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


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
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback