1 |
On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
> On 03-04-2010 09:50, Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
>> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just |
4 |
>> means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a |
5 |
>> different resolution should be used. So what do you think about |
6 |
>> disabling later? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to |
9 |
> fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a |
10 |
> priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the |
11 |
> bug exists and needs to be taken care of. |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find |
15 |
time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account |
16 |
or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to |
17 |
work on. |
18 |
|
19 |
>> I would like to avoid things like this: |
20 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 |
21 |
> |
22 |
> You've chosen a terrible example as in that case the resolution is |
23 |
> accurate. The forums team didn't find that issue to be a priority and |
24 |
> doesn't have the time to deal with it. As the bug was open for years |
25 |
> without any progress, we chose to close it as LATER. If someone else |
26 |
> wants to step up and take care of it, great. |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
Yeah there's probably better examples out there but that's what sparked |
30 |
me to think about this so I went with it. From a recruiter perspective |
31 |
the need to tie to LDAP is still there so the issue isn't gone. |
32 |
|
33 |
Regards, |
34 |
Petteri |