[rfc-i] Pre-qualifying errata [was Re: Errata proposal]

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 11:44:39 PDT 2012


I think the process here would benefit from a distinction between a
defect report and an errata.

My understanding of the term 'errata' is that it is the correction of
an error. So something that is not accepted as a correction is not an
errata. It is a proposed errata which is something else entirely.


I would probably want to have an easy way to view an RFC and proposed
errata but not as the default action.


On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> Peter Koch wrote:
>>
>> I'd agree here, but that is a different issue from Marc's statement
>> that 'spurious errata create more work' for the implementer (as opposed
>> to the reviewer).
>>
>> Rejected errata can be ignored by the implementer.
>
> I strongly disagree with the last statement.
>
> The rejection of an errata does not necessarily apply to the reported
> problem, but instead might be limited to the proposed fix.
>
> The quality of the existing erratas, and their categorization seems
> to be quite unsuited for automatic application of corrections.
>
>
> Personally, I think the existing errata process has a number of
> problems, which includes the impossibility to adjust the proposed
> fix of a submitted errata, and a partially random selection of
> the status "accepted", "wait for document update", and "rejected".
>
>
> -Martin
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list