FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-03-2010, 09:50 AM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
 
Old 04-03-2010, 10:03 AM
Krzysztof Pawlik
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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...
 
Old 04-03-2010, 10:09 AM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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.
 
Old 04-03-2010, 10:27 AM
Krzysztof Pawlik
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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...
 
Old 04-03-2010, 03:25 PM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

-----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/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJLt13jAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPVbkP/2rux+TdVxLUDl1WjKC4IOwT
sVLs4slXFYxIsd5TxlaxA9/nkPFVUiUtzmCwNHdYRLIxQpbJk2FHhHzfeuT6h2nF
0n29V9mRobXvMxUAIKNuu8F8VEoKPouKBF64rPoOgqv4KG1bmn AvmS1VzxMMj9Gi
RO2Zt9xlb1rDzy1/fTLUCT0LKvuMZvPv5ZxXBfqDZT9fD4bEFH63RfVnOaEGU/X4
7MMju7MhSxpZxpea/jTIXSEnblH/lbjwM4aYunrFvGq/O4i1A45SS2iASqN2xsmj
FCVzzigCFD0htI7pvJkCgW560UPX102jHUMxEIlMluoBsT+Lvg iAVca9vySfLKF+
CuQEGpLaXFpWyJjHMW9tCKdEFZkSV7oTC1vuCwOXU5beHhHA7A HqR0j1ADTJIQa7
d2GOHkKRrrUSqmwRL4gjOj1C8LHkHdpVKAg8Ni6HTdd2aAQEGb 4R+0mCZM8zJ19r
zQpCqYI4zpKOhkvYRQf7VtdgmvRbw5KX8qjjRi4DDy8+larFYL c1GcYDpuGp2W56
MfYkZy6EgAdwmKyrFlknxkYXk64FWtsWNSzTMW6Wi/Xu9OiL9ArAbgO8d2DdRL3T
p4acejrSxHbGL3wXMsOOOVkUf2rLjA1XTukgk4VK4fEKg0ITa8 RIewRZRQtS0WyF
odz4rA5x2k2HwLvgA52I
=XTLq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 04-03-2010, 05:10 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
 
Old 04-03-2010, 05:54 PM
Alec Warner
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
>
>
 
Old 04-03-2010, 06:23 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
 
Old 04-03-2010, 06:58 PM
Tiziano Müller
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
 
Old 04-03-2010, 09:35 PM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org