On 04/04/2010 12:16 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>> And why not just keep them open as suggested?
> Because often there is no reason whatsoever to keep it open. People
> want a package to be bumped that we *know* has been released, is in
> the overlay (or will end up there soon), and will go into the tree
> with GNOME 2.30. I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. If we
> start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.

There is a valid need for having a new version in tree that users will
be searching for in bugzilla. If you want to hide these bugs from your
normal listings then the tools for that have been provided in this thread.


> We already have pages that have the status of bumped packages,[1] so
> we know what needs to be done.

You might but not everyone searching for GNOME bugs in bugzilla knows
how things are handled.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to