[gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

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"

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Krzysztof Pawlik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

On 04/03/10 10:50, 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 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"

Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are
not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in
this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining).

When we kill RESOLVED LATER maybe we could also kill RESOLVED REMIND? I don't
remember it being very useful.

-- 
Krzysztof Pawlik  <nelchael at gentoo.org>  key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --]

On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 04/03/10 10:50, 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 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"
> 
> Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are
> not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in
> this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining).

Wouldn't WORKSFORME apply in that case? Just renaming the resolutions
doesn't gain us much. Reducing the number of possible resolutions does,
I'd say.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Krzysztof Pawlik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1822 bytes --]

On 04/03/10 11:09, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>> On 04/03/10 10:50, 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 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"
>>
>> Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are
>> not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in
>> this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining).
> 
> Wouldn't WORKSFORME apply in that case? Just renaming the resolutions
> doesn't gain us much. Reducing the number of possible resolutions does,
> I'd say.

In my opinion: no. WORKSFORME is for a problems that can't be reproduced.
OBSOLETE would be: yes, this bug has been applicable, but situation changed,
ignore it. One of the examples could be stabilization bugs: you have an open
stabilization bug, but new version comes out with important security fix and it
needs to go stable ASAP. You mark the old stabilization bug as OBSOLETE and
continue in the one opened for security issue (as it usually happens).

To summarize: I'm suggesting axing two resolutions (LATER and REMIND) and
introduce OBSOLETE. If OBSOLETE doesn't sound like a good idea I'm ok with not
having it -- removing two resolutions is a nice achievement too :)

-- 
Krzysztof Pawlik  <nelchael at gentoo.org>  key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

Am Samstag 03 April 2010 12:27:38 schrieb Krzysztof Pawlik:

> >> Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs
> >> that are not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID
> >> isn't applicable in this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid
> >> from the begining).

+1 for OBSOLETE, that would give a clear response to outdated stable requests 
etc...

-- 
Dr. Andreas K. Huettel
Institute for Experimental and Applied Physics
University of Regensburg
D-93040 Regensburg
Germany

tel. +49 151 241 67748 (mobile)
e-mail mail@akhuettel.de
http://www.akhuettel.de/research/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

> 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.

> Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract says:
> "We will not hide problems"

When you mark something as LATER because you don't have the time nor
find it a priority, you're not "hidding a problem". If someone uses that
resolution to hide problems, that person should be warned of the above.

> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=XTLq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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 vote for a LATER KEYWORD instead of a resolution.  Really what
I would want when searching is to know what set of bugs I should be
working on short-term versus bugs I'd consider more like
'project-work'.  LATER is typically stuff that is:
 - too big to do now, but may get covered in some kind of sprint or fixit.
 - blocking on something else (EAPI, upstream revbump, etc.)
 - too hard to do now, but may be easier in the future (kind of like
#2, but possibly unrelated)

The point is I'm looking for a set of bugs that are possible to fix
now; and currently closing some types of bugs as RESOLVED:LATER does
this for me.

-A

>>> 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
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

On 04/03/2010 08:54 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 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 vote for a LATER KEYWORD instead of a resolution.  Really what
> I would want when searching is to know what set of bugs I should be
> working on short-term versus bugs I'd consider more like
> 'project-work'.  LATER is typically stuff that is:
>  - too big to do now, but may get covered in some kind of sprint or fixit.
>  - blocking on something else (EAPI, upstream revbump, etc.)
>  - too hard to do now, but may be easier in the future (kind of like
> #2, but possibly unrelated)
> 

For #2 you can use dependencies. I have no problem adding a keyword as
it keeps the bugs open.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.

Reassigning the bug to yourself (or the herd) if necessary, accepting
it, and then explaining what/who/why/etc in a comment is the way to go
in that case. No system, however good it is,  will replace proper
communication.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Tiziano Müller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

Am Samstag, den 03.04.2010, 12:50 +0300 schrieb 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:
Yes, please remove it. Keep it simple and stupid. LATER means it's not
resolved and is as such not a valid resolution.

-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit :
> 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?

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 face
of the reported like this do we ?

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Alec Warner]

2010/4/3 Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>:
> Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit :
>> 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?
>
> 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 face
> of the reported like this do we ?

Thats why I think a bugzilla LATER keyword is just as effective; but
people doing bugzie searches would no longer exclude these types of
bugs on accident.

-A

>
> --
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
> Gentoo
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit :
>> 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?
> 
> 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 face
> of the reported like this do we ?
> 

And why not just keep them open as suggested?

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> 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 face
>> of the reported like this do we ?
>>
>
> And why not just keep them open as suggested?
>

Because often there is no reason whatsoever to keep it open. People
want a package to be bumped that we *know* has been released, is in
the overlay (or will end up there soon), and will go into the tree
with GNOME 2.30. I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. If we
start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.

We already have pages that have the status of bumped packages,[1] so
we know what needs to be done.

1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/gnome/2.30/status.html

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1432 bytes --]

On 04/04/2010 12:16 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>>> 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 face
>>> of the reported like this do we ?
>>>
>>
>> And why not just keep them open as suggested?
>>
> 
> Because often there is no reason whatsoever to keep it open. People
> want a package to be bumped that we *know* has been released, is in
> the overlay (or will end up there soon), and will go into the tree
> with GNOME 2.30. I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. If we
> start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.
> 

There is a valid need for having a new version in tree that users will
be searching for in bugzilla. If you want to hide these bugs from your
normal listings then the tools for that have been provided in this thread.

Regards,
Petteri

> We already have pages that have the status of bumped packages,[1] so
> we know what needs to be done.
> 

You might but not everyone searching for GNOME bugs in bugzilla knows
how things are handled.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open.

How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes.

> If we
> start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.

What's the big deal? You know you'll be adding/bumping the package at
some point. Just close the bug when you do so. It's certainly less
work than marking it RESOLVED FIXED once and then DUPLICATE many times
after that.

The point of bugzilla is tracking bugs, not a tool to arbitrate a
pissing contest about who has the least bugs open. If you can't/don't
want to fix a bug that's OK, but it's not a good enough reason to
pretend it never existed.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open.
>
> How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes.
>

We already advise our users to check RESO bugs before filing bugs; and
the advice seems to have trickled down quite well, and users only file
duplicate bugs once before getting the idea. Overall, IMO it has
worked. We only keep a single bug open for the entire GNOME 2.xx so
people don't file dupes for that (we get a lot of dupes for that, but
not specific packages).

>> If we
>> start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.
>
> What's the big deal? You know you'll be adding/bumping the package at
> some point. Just close the bug when you do so. It's certainly less
> work than marking it RESOLVED FIXED once and then DUPLICATE many times
> after that.
>
> The point of bugzilla is tracking bugs, not a tool to arbitrate a
> pissing contest about who has the least bugs open. If you can't/don't
> want to fix a bug that's OK, but it's not a good enough reason to
> pretend it never existed.
>

That's not the point; as I have explained above; our purpose is to
prevent bug reports for packages that will go in with the major
release from being filed. We usually have a [Tracker] bug open for the
major release anyway; so the choice is either RESO DUPLICATE against
that, or RESO LATER.

We often do the latter to prevent noise on the tracker bug, or if it
hasn't been filed yet, and the user is doing a stupid zero day bump
request (or a development version bump request).

For packages that are not in the gnome set, or gnome external deps
set, we obviously keep the bump request bug open.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1397 bytes --]

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:50 +0300, 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 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"

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.

In my case, I want to have a "gnome" saved search that shows all OPEN
(non-LATER) bugs directly assigned to gnome, and another saved search
that shows those where gnome@ is merely in CC, or anything marked as
LATER. Though that might not be achievable, so three saved searches
really.
More useful might be a date field upon which it will simply
automatically re-open. Maybe something one is unable to set more than 30
or so days into the future.


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Peter Hjalmarsson]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 03/04/2010 11:50, Petteri Räty a écrit :
> 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"

You're basically blaming LATER and other resolutions for users failing
to *search* correctly.

How about changing how users search instead?

Let's make the small search box search for ALL bugs instead of just
opened ones. *That* should help tremendously.

That, and what Mart suggested. That's a good idea too.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Tuesday 06 of April 2010 07:47:17 Rémi Cardona wrote:

> How about changing how users search instead?
> 
> Let's make the small search box search for ALL bugs instead of just
> opened ones. *That* should help tremendously.
+1, maybe even enable it by default. That could reduce dupes imho.

> That, and what Mart suggested. That's a good idea too.
-1
As for me, RESOLVED/LATER is sth like "in v2.0", so "maybe I'll waste my time 
to fix it in a future but I don't really bother and I don't see it happening 
tbh so don't bug me anymore".
Unresolved valid issues should stay open, that's my reasoning.

-- 
regards
MM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:47:17 +0200
Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:

> How about changing how users search instead?
> 
> Let's make the small search box search for ALL bugs instead of just
> opened ones. *That* should help tremendously.

Adding additional bug types to search for by default - ok. Forcing
search on all bugs - that's an overuse.

In fact, myself I frequently search for a particular bug using
the package name only - as users tend to use very many descriptions for
the same issues. If that search returned me hundreds of years-old bugs,
it wouldn't make much of a sense.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 724 bytes --]

Hi,

Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
> 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
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 954 bytes --]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
> > 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

On 04/12/2010 02:20 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
> Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
>>> 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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]