[ckan-dev] Resolving CEP versus CREP naming

[David Read]

On 16 May 2011 16:11, Seb Bacon <seb.bacon at okfn.org> wrote:
> I'm +1 on "CREP".

Great. I believe CREP is a landslide - Seb can we call it a decision yet?

> 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.

I guess the key thing is that they persist their number during the
time it takes to be turned into docs.

If you mint a crap a small number e.g. "CREP 5", it's easier to
remember, but you still need to know the ticket number to be able to
find it. A wiki index is not as good as a ticket report/query.

I think CREPs are in danger of falling between two stools now -
tickets and checked-in RST / docs.

I think there are more benefits of them integrating well into the
tickets, because they are the next stage in the dev process. So I say
let's make them display like tickets (so usual ticket Wiki formatting,
unless there is a way to display RST in tickets), are numbered as
tickets and have a lifecycle like a ticket. The key differences from
tickets are:
* they are called CREP
* they are more elaborate (Seb's suggested template)
* discussion is solicited
Otherwise I'm comfortable with losing other arbitrary distinctions from tickets.

David

>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>