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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-40445-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Ny7Yo-0004RG-8P
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:55:06 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA0AEE0C1F;
Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com (mail-qy0-f180.google.com [209.85.221.180])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A17FE0C11
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:54:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so99700qyk.26
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.229.46.11 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BB7766C.9010702@gentoo.org>
References: <4BB70F5E.7010101@gentoo.org> <4BB75DE3.7070308@gentoo.org>
<4BB7766C.9010702@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:54:53 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d8278d424eb75ce7
Received: by 10.229.97.207 with SMTP id m15mr6203742qcn.6.1270317293552; Sat,
03 Apr 2010 10:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <v2rb41005391004031054jf181d665xb908c171142d2a81@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 49e44a17-8bf2-48ba-a7cc-a66ea282a57e
X-Archives-Hash: 4695bce6f34b94925838785cda35efbb
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> =
wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 06:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> On 03-04-2010 09:50, Petteri R=C3=A4ty 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=3D113121#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
>
>