Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:55:42
Message-Id: 1270428898.19463.6.camel@localhost
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? by "Petteri Räty"
1 On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
2 > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just
3 > means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
4 > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
5 > disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this:
6 >
7 >
8 >
9 > Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract says:
10 > "We will not hide problems"
12 The problem is really the RESOLVED connotation and the hiding that goes
13 along with that on searches, etc.
15 The LATER status itself can be useful when used properly (more as
16 "ASSIGNED LATER"). In the lack of that some bigger teams might need to
17 think of other methods to get things meant for LATER out of main views
18 of huge bug lists.
20 In my case, I want to have a "gnome" saved search that shows all OPEN
21 (non-LATER) bugs directly assigned to gnome, and another saved search
22 that shows those where gnome@ is merely in CC, or anything marked as
23 LATER. Though that might not be achievable, so three saved searches
24 really.
25 More useful might be a date field upon which it will simply
26 automatically re-open. Maybe something one is unable to set more than 30
27 or so days into the future.
30 --
31 Mart Raudsepp
32 Gentoo Developer
33 Mail: leio@g.o
34 Weblog:


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


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Peter Hjalmarsson <xake@×××××××××.net>