Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of MapGuideRfc7


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 6, 2007, 8:42:37 PM (17 years ago)
Author:
jbirch
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • MapGuideRfc7

    v2 v3  
    88 
    99||RFC Template Version||(1.0)||
    10 ||Submission Date||(Date/Time submitted)||
     10||Submission Date||n/a||
    1111||Last Modified||jasonbirch [[Timestamp]]||
    1212||Author||Trevor Wekel||
    13 ||RFC Status||draft||
    14 ||Implementation Status||(pending, under development, completed)||
    15 ||Proposed Milestone||1.2||
    16 ||Assigned PSC guide(s)||(when determined)||
    17 ||'''Voting History'''||(vote date)||
    18 ||+1||||
    19 ||+0||||
    20 ||-0||||
    21 ||-1||||
     13||RFC Status||superseded||
     14||Implementation Status||n/a||
     15||Proposed Milestone||n/a||
     16||Assigned PSC guide(s)||n/a||
     17||'''Voting History'''||n/a||
    2218 
    23 == Overview ==
     19== Notes ==
    2420
    25 This section brefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms.  It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so.
     21This RFC was intended to cover the issues raised in this email thread:
    2622
    27 == Motivation ==
     23http://www.nabble.com/Tooltip-performance-tf2652498s16610.html#a7401729
    2824
    29 This is the most important part of the RFC.  It describes the problem domain in detail.  Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results.  The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be.
     25But was never fully specified or proposed. 
    3026
    31 == Proposed Solution ==
     27All of the concerns that this RFC was to address have been resolved as part of [wiki:MapGuideRfc15]
    3228
    33 This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired.  The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change.  For example, for a technical change, items such as files, XML schema changes, and API chances would be identified.  For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail.  For a website change, the files affected would be listed.
    34 
    35 == Implications ==
    36 
    37 This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.
    38 
    39 == Test Plan ==
    40 
    41 How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable.  New unit tests should be detailed here???
    42 
    43 == Funding/Resources ==
    44 
    45 This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed.  This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could act as an RFC author if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.