| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03-04-2010 09:50, 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? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to |
| 10 |
>> fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a |
| 11 |
>> priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the |
| 12 |
>> bug exists and needs to be taken care of. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find |
| 16 |
> time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account |
| 17 |
> or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to |
| 18 |
> work on. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I would vote for a LATER KEYWORD instead of a resolution. Really what |
| 22 |
I would want when searching is to know what set of bugs I should be |
| 23 |
working on short-term versus bugs I'd consider more like |
| 24 |
'project-work'. LATER is typically stuff that is: |
| 25 |
- too big to do now, but may get covered in some kind of sprint or fixit. |
| 26 |
- blocking on something else (EAPI, upstream revbump, etc.) |
| 27 |
- too hard to do now, but may be easier in the future (kind of like |
| 28 |
#2, but possibly unrelated) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The point is I'm looking for a set of bugs that are possible to fix |
| 31 |
now; and currently closing some types of bugs as RESOLVED:LATER does |
| 32 |
this for me. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-A |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
>>> I would like to avoid things like this: |
| 37 |
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> You've chosen a terrible example as in that case the resolution is |
| 40 |
>> accurate. The forums team didn't find that issue to be a priority and |
| 41 |
>> doesn't have the time to deal with it. As the bug was open for years |
| 42 |
>> without any progress, we chose to close it as LATER. If someone else |
| 43 |
>> wants to step up and take care of it, great. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Yeah there's probably better examples out there but that's what sparked |
| 47 |
> me to think about this so I went with it. From a recruiter perspective |
| 48 |
> the need to tie to LDAP is still there so the issue isn't gone. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Regards, |
| 51 |
> Petteri |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
Archives