From: | Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | Gentoo Development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o> | ||
Subject: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? | ||
Date: | Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:14:12 | ||
Message-Id: | 20100408001341.4aae0114@gentoo.org | ||
In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? by "Petteri Räty" |
1 | Hi, |
2 | |
3 | Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>: |
4 | > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it |
5 | > just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a |
6 | > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about |
7 | > disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this: |
8 | > |
9 | > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 |
10 | > |
11 | > Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract |
12 | > says: "We will not hide problems" |
13 | |
14 | Kill REMIND and LATER, introduce Later keyword or ASSIGNED LATER. |
15 | |
16 | V-Li |
17 | |
18 | -- |
19 | Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project |
20 | <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode |
21 | |
22 | <URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/> |
File name | MIME type |
---|---|
signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? | Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> |