Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

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/>

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>