public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Search results ordered by [date|relevance]  view[summary|nested|Atom feed]
thread overview below | download: 
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
  @ 2010-04-12  9:00 99%     ` Petteri Räty
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Petteri Räty @ 2010-04-12  9:00 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- 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 --]

^ 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       ` Ryan Hill
2010-04-12  9:00 99%     ` Petteri Räty

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox