On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 13:18, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 13:04 +0100, Robin Burchell wrote: >> Excerpts from Andrew Flegg's message of Mon Jul 12 12:55:24 +0100 2010: >> > Perhaps a new resolution of "NOTAPRIORITY" (or things are kept open at >> > a low priority) needs to exist? >> >> I would personally much prefer things just stay open, especially if >> they're enhancement requests. > > I agree.
Indeed. This is not something that ever occurred in the maemo.org Bugzilla, though. The component owner would mark it WONTFIX if it equated to "(I)WONTFIX". > I can imagine that there's a need to get such open enhancements out of > the various queues. What has worked for SyncEvolution is to change "NEW" > into "ASSIGNED" (to get it out of list of issues which need to be > triaged) and pick a dummy user as assignee (to avoid cluttering personal > issue lists). A relatively good solution, although assigned to a dummy user is a bit of a bodge. Isn't there "ACCEPTED"? ACCEPTED, unassigned and low priority would give a list of things which people could attempt if they had free time. If there was a "complexity" field (set by the component owner), low priority, low complexity, ACCPETED issues could give an easy way in to new developers to many many parts of the project. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/ Maemo Community Council chair _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
