1 |
On 04/03/10 11:09, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
2 |
> On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: |
3 |
>> On 04/03/10 10:50, Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
>>> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just |
5 |
>>> 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 says: |
12 |
>>> "We will not hide problems" |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are |
15 |
>> not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in |
16 |
>> this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Wouldn't WORKSFORME apply in that case? Just renaming the resolutions |
19 |
> doesn't gain us much. Reducing the number of possible resolutions does, |
20 |
> I'd say. |
21 |
|
22 |
In my opinion: no. WORKSFORME is for a problems that can't be reproduced. |
23 |
OBSOLETE would be: yes, this bug has been applicable, but situation changed, |
24 |
ignore it. One of the examples could be stabilization bugs: you have an open |
25 |
stabilization bug, but new version comes out with important security fix and it |
26 |
needs to go stable ASAP. You mark the old stabilization bug as OBSOLETE and |
27 |
continue in the one opened for security issue (as it usually happens). |
28 |
|
29 |
To summarize: I'm suggesting axing two resolutions (LATER and REMIND) and |
30 |
introduce OBSOLETE. If OBSOLETE doesn't sound like a good idea I'm ok with not |
31 |
having it -- removing two resolutions is a nice achievement too :) |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 |
35 |
desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python... |