On 04/03/10 11:09, "PaweÅ‚ Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>> On 04/03/10 10:50, Petteri RÃ¤ty 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:
>>> 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...