Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

release-schema: add planning.id #1335

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 30, 2021
Merged

release-schema: add planning.id #1335

merged 8 commits into from
Jul 30, 2021

Conversation

yolile
Copy link
Member

@yolile yolile commented Jul 14, 2021

closes #924

Signed-off-by: Yohanna Lisnichuk <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yohanna Lisnichuk <[email protected]>
@@ -122,6 +122,14 @@
"description": "Information from the planning phase of the contracting process. Note that many other fields can be filled in a planning release, in the appropriate fields in other schema sections; these would likely be estimates at this stage, e.g. value in tender.",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"title": "Planning ID",
"description": "An identifier for this planning stage.",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a particular reason to use 'stage' rather than 'process' (as in the previous commit)?

According to #866, in 1.2 the guidance will be that the planning section should only appear in planning processes, which are defined separately from contracting processes.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a particular reason to use 'stage' rather than 'process' (as in the previous commit)?

For consistency. Planning description uses "planning phase", Planning milestones "planning stage", but planning documents "planning process". But you are right, happy to change it back to process, and maybe update the other fields' descriptions to process as well?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aha, I see. Yes, let's go with "planning process" here, since the three terms are used equally and interchangeably and "planning process" aligns better with 1.2. For changing the other descriptions, maybe you can open a new issue about ensuring that the terminology in the planning section makes sense for planning processes (similar to #1154) in case we need to make any other changes.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've updated all the references "planning" in the release schema now

@jpmckinney jpmckinney merged commit dec68e2 into 1.2-dev Jul 30, 2021
@jpmckinney jpmckinney deleted the 924-planning-id branch July 30, 2021 21:11
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Jul 31, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants