1 |
On 04/04/2010 12:16 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
4 |
>>> You are trying to remove a valid status for a case that has been badly |
5 |
>>> managed ??? Speaking for gnome herd, afaik, all bugs marked LATER are |
6 |
>>> for the simple reason they will be done later and no other status would |
7 |
>>> be fine expect REJECTED maybe, but we don't want to say that to the face |
8 |
>>> of the reported like this do we ? |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> And why not just keep them open as suggested? |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Because often there is no reason whatsoever to keep it open. People |
15 |
> want a package to be bumped that we *know* has been released, is in |
16 |
> the overlay (or will end up there soon), and will go into the tree |
17 |
> with GNOME 2.30. I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. If we |
18 |
> start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
There is a valid need for having a new version in tree that users will |
22 |
be searching for in bugzilla. If you want to hide these bugs from your |
23 |
normal listings then the tools for that have been provided in this thread. |
24 |
|
25 |
Regards, |
26 |
Petteri |
27 |
|
28 |
> We already have pages that have the status of bumped packages,[1] so |
29 |
> we know what needs to be done. |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
You might but not everyone searching for GNOME bugs in bugzilla knows |
33 |
how things are handled. |
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Petteri |