| 1 |
On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03-04-2010 09:50, 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? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to |
| 9 |
> fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a |
| 10 |
> priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the |
| 11 |
> bug exists and needs to be taken care of. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find |
| 15 |
time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account |
| 16 |
or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to |
| 17 |
work on. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> I would like to avoid things like this: |
| 20 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> You've chosen a terrible example as in that case the resolution is |
| 23 |
> accurate. The forums team didn't find that issue to be a priority and |
| 24 |
> doesn't have the time to deal with it. As the bug was open for years |
| 25 |
> without any progress, we chose to close it as LATER. If someone else |
| 26 |
> wants to step up and take care of it, great. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yeah there's probably better examples out there but that's what sparked |
| 30 |
me to think about this so I went with it. From a recruiter perspective |
| 31 |
the need to tie to LDAP is still there so the issue isn't gone. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Petteri |
Archives