Re: Conformance Check: Revised Documents
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with Sami.
Throwing out a quick idea - it seems like using the main numbers that do match to the goals is ok, but it’s the point numbers that make it confusing. Could we simply use:
Would that be clear enough that it doesn’t exactly line up but still tie the questions to the relevant part of the spec?
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________OpenChain mailing listOpenChain@...https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
I had a quick glance at the document and still think we should use a different numbering system for the questions to avoid mix up with the spec numbering.
I will provide more feedback once I have been through the document in more detail.
following up on yesterday’s call, please find attached the revised conformance check documents. As discussed, I added the references to the specification and the other changes we agreed on (changes tracked). Please let me know, if I missed anything.
Thank you all for your contributions! I feel we took a great step forward yesterday.
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamborner Straße 51, 40472 Düsseldorf
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 40857
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Carsten Busch, Michael Hunt.
Join email@example.com to automatically receive all group messages.