On 04/03/2010 08:54 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> 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)

For #2 you can use dependencies. I have no problem adding a keyword as
it keeps the bugs open.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to