On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Petteri Räty <betelge...@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 > >
