Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Paweł Hajdan
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:09:52
Message-Id: 4BB713D5.7000909@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? by Krzysztof Pawlik
1 On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
2 > On 04/03/10 10:50, Petteri Räty wrote:
3 >> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just
4 >> means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
5 >> different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
6 >> disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this:
7 >>
8 >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21
9 >>
10 >> Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract says:
11 >> "We will not hide problems"
12 >
13 > Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are
14 > not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in
15 > this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining).
16
17 Wouldn't WORKSFORME apply in that case? Just renaming the resolutions
18 doesn't gain us much. Reducing the number of possible resolutions does,
19 I'd say.

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael@g.o>