[ckan-dev] Resolving CEP versus CREP naming

[James Gardner]

I've been saying CREP and I like it.

+1 for CREP

On 11/05/11 13:15, David Read wrote:
> I'm leaning towards CREP.
>
> Is it important to refer to them distinctly from tickets? Can we not
> just use the ticket number, rather than have an additional CREP
> number?
>
> Also, the 'CREP status' field
> (draft/accepted/rejected/completed/obseleted) can we not just use the
> ticket status (new/assigned/invalid/fixed/wontfix). i.e. when a Crep
> is accepted, assign it. So a Crep is essentially a more detailed
> ticket/superticket.
>
> David
>
> On 11 May 2011 13:04, Rufus Pollock<rufus.pollock at okfn.org>  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Before we go any further with CEPs / CREPs can I propose we take the
>> minor step of deciding on naming.
>>
>> I'd prefer CEP so I'm counting that as a +1. Please respond with your
>> +1 / -1 / +0 / -0.
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>> PS: I note that before we started this CREP process we already have
>> CEPs 0001-0005 in the ceps repo. Whichever way we go we will need to
>> consolidate so please start all numbering above 0005 (I suggest Sebs
>> foundational CEP/CREP be numbered 0000).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-dev mailing list
>> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev