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

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

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
>
>