Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:36:24
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? by Nirbheek Chauhan
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 >
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.
25 Regards,
26 Petteri
28 > We already have pages that have the status of bumped packages,[1] so
29 > we know what needs to be done.
30 >
32 You might but not everyone searching for GNOME bugs in bugzilla knows
33 how things are handled.
35 Regards,
36 Petteri


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