[ckan-dev] Resolving CEP versus CREP naming

[Seb Bacon]

I'm +1 on "CREP".

Good point from David about CREP number.  I suppose the reason *not*
to tie it to ticket number is then it may not be portable between
ticketing systems.

Seb

On 11 May 2011 14:17, James Gardner <james at 3aims.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>