* [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
@ 2010-04-11 23:20 99% ` Ryan Hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Ryan Hill @ 2010-04-11 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2010-04-03 9:50 [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Petteri Räty
2010-04-07 22:13 ` [gentoo-dev] " Christian Faulhammer
2010-04-11 23:20 99% ` Ryan Hill
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox