1 |
On 04/03/2010 08:54 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 03-04-2010 09:50, Petteri Räty wrote: |
5 |
>>>> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just |
6 |
>>>> means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a |
7 |
>>>> different resolution should be used. So what do you think about |
8 |
>>>> disabling later? |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> I disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to |
11 |
>>> fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a |
12 |
>>> priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the |
13 |
>>> bug exists and needs to be taken care of. |
14 |
>>> |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find |
17 |
>> time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account |
18 |
>> or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to |
19 |
>> work on. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I would vote for a LATER KEYWORD instead of a resolution. Really what |
23 |
> I would want when searching is to know what set of bugs I should be |
24 |
> working on short-term versus bugs I'd consider more like |
25 |
> 'project-work'. LATER is typically stuff that is: |
26 |
> - too big to do now, but may get covered in some kind of sprint or fixit. |
27 |
> - blocking on something else (EAPI, upstream revbump, etc.) |
28 |
> - too hard to do now, but may be easier in the future (kind of like |
29 |
> #2, but possibly unrelated) |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
For #2 you can use dependencies. I have no problem adding a keyword as |
33 |
it keeps the bugs open. |
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Petteri |