From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 20:10:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB7766C.9010702@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB75DE3.7070308@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1518 bytes --]
On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 03-04-2010 09:50, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> 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 disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to
> fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a
> priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the
> bug exists and needs to be taken care of.
>
What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find
time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account
or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to
work on.
>> I would like to avoid things like this:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113121#c21
>
> You've chosen a terrible example as in that case the resolution is
> accurate. The forums team didn't find that issue to be a priority and
> doesn't have the time to deal with it. As the bug was open for years
> without any progress, we chose to close it as LATER. If someone else
> wants to step up and take care of it, great.
>
Yeah there's probably better examples out there but that's what sparked
me to think about this so I went with it. From a recruiter perspective
the need to tie to LDAP is still there so the issue isn't gone.
Regards,
Petteri
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-03 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-03 9:50 [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Petteri Räty
2010-04-03 10:03 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
2010-04-03 10:09 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2010-04-03 10:27 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
2010-04-04 16:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2010-04-03 15:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2010-04-03 17:10 ` Petteri Räty [this message]
2010-04-03 17:54 ` Alec Warner
2010-04-03 18:23 ` Petteri Räty
2010-04-05 17:58 ` Denis Dupeyron
2010-04-03 18:58 ` Tiziano Müller
2010-04-03 21:35 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue
2010-04-03 22:01 ` Alec Warner
2010-04-04 9:05 ` Petteri Räty
2010-04-04 9:16 ` Nirbheek Chauhan
2010-04-04 9:36 ` Petteri Räty
2010-04-05 17:54 ` Denis Dupeyron
2010-04-05 20:20 ` Nirbheek Chauhan
2010-04-05 0:54 ` Mart Raudsepp
2010-04-05 10:07 ` [gentoo-dev] " Peter Hjalmarsson
2010-04-06 5:47 ` [gentoo-dev] " Rémi Cardona
2010-04-06 7:42 ` Maciej Mrozowski
2010-04-06 9:46 ` Michał Górny
2010-04-07 22:13 ` [gentoo-dev] " Christian Faulhammer
2010-04-11 23:20 ` Ryan Hill
2010-04-12 9:00 ` Petteri Räty
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BB7766C.9010702@gentoo.org \
--to=betelgeuse@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox