From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NyLmD-0000dL-HA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:05:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CCC6E0986; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E41AE093B for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.197] (qiv5.kyla.fi [82.130.46.197]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C251E1B4018 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BB85674.3070906@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:05:56 +0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090916 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? References: <4BB70F5E.7010101@gentoo.org> <1270330558.15538.4.camel@keitaro.perronet.esiee.net> In-Reply-To: <1270330558.15538.4.camel@keitaro.perronet.esiee.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=B8E4ECF0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1048A12F4FAF0A812B9A0A6F" X-Archives-Salt: da2729ca-e092-47a2-8fc4-2a04d386d790 X-Archives-Hash: 8d49ad67fdc9e5d92276fb6ac4181c16 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1048A12F4FAF0A812B9A0A6F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le samedi 03 avril 2010 =C3=A0 12:50 +0300, Petteri R=C3=A4ty a =C3=A9c= rit : >> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it jus= t >> 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? >=20 > You are trying to remove a valid status for a case that has been badly > managed ??? Speaking for gnome herd, afaik, all bugs marked LATER are > for the simple reason they will be done later and no other status would= > be fine expect REJECTED maybe, but we don't want to say that to the fac= e > of the reported like this do we ? >=20 And why not just keep them open as suggested? Regards, Petteri --------------enig1048A12F4FAF0A812B9A0A6F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLuFZ5AAoJEPeUsk245OzwG6kP/jCzSOiYlJKW/c7J6Z+mESv7 duN4ViGTxb87oejJ3JgueNnza1qU/nH51pQJTSRaoZFpLZ+nBonBCJ/sU+zGlTv8 mR19u6ujfQy8i4FiTihqKUv4htiyfsvDco0pe4HQaEcwOnvz++JxgwGoIq0O6m8h J5IrLyKtIIAIysfLqLIKNaNv1xI1HV/bzs88YkF3d/uq385pJEzp+gI/sJ58Gfam TD5WUBbCjgL7L8XyFrXoP9FHAsXLwD4zoNfEZm3COPQg2fMPVmCnMVZPEts1NXjI 7POhGBePoZqgGqFb6AKUt0uiIIl/GvovLu7GuGqeF7CKfzpWOiXtTFnCDSH7QpYe yK7VA7T8xK3Tjg6gHrE9kruqKmGelLu7xgxK2Tiadk1EN9RHRfVqe9+7zo4lwV3/ RBlu9ob9x2awjGJwb8/DbBMe2prPot2M2QRMDjA7tt8d5ZZ+eCihZ6XgiTBupg/s PHmvm7qJuU4VVLWLx1tyLBVTl2FZ1nr5S8YhuEv72kZ/KNgaheh0wpGVeo70dfFb nBYexPtSMbxr5ciP085CYHw3849hylqcuW2N6vTIbd5sC6iKwvta2BIuRLg8/Bbx y4Tdez66nU3jGUHW3TVttlSQRZKM6rH9ikSMzYQckwWuUaT20ZYlLjtL9YhnqowU 6xzeFtGDi0QVEQ2BhGTq =eu9L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1048A12F4FAF0A812B9A0A6F--