Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
On 04/12/2010 02:20 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200 > Christian Faulhammer wrote: > >> Petteri Räty : >>> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it >>> just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a >>> different resolution should be used. So what do you think about >>> disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this: >>> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 >>> >>> Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract >>> says: "We will not hide problems" >> >> Kill REMIND and LATER, introduce Later keyword or ASSIGNED LATER. > > "Me too."© > > What happens to bugs already in that state though? > > I would imagine they could be kept in the db as it is but just remove the options from the UI. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Petteri Räty : > > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it > > just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a > > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about > > disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this: > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 > > > > Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract > > says: "We will not hide problems" > > Kill REMIND and LATER, introduce Later keyword or ASSIGNED LATER. "Me too."© What happens to bugs already in that state though? -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
Hi, Petteri Räty : > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it > just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about > disabling later? I would like to avoid things like this: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21 > > Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract > says: "We will not hide problems" Kill REMIND and LATER, introduce Later keyword or ASSIGNED LATER. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
mån 2010-04-05 klockan 03:54 +0300 skrev Mart Raudsepp: > The problem is really the RESOLVED connotation and the hiding that goes > along with that on searches, etc. > > The LATER status itself can be useful when used properly (more as > "ASSIGNED LATER"). In the lack of that some bigger teams might need to > think of other methods to get things meant for LATER out of main views > of huge bug lists. Actually I think this is the best yet. I have always found the sounding of RESOLVED LATER so harsh. ASSIGNED LATER would more sound like we know there is a problem, and we know it should be fixed, but we cannot do it now for different reasons.
