On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 10:45 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 2.9.2011 22:54, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly
Dne 2.9.2011 22:54, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
propose as an enhancement by filing a
Dne 3.9.2011 00:33, Matt McCutchen napsal(a):
bugs would harmonize with the current RHEL policy. None of my 131 bugs
have been marked CANTFIX [2]; maintainers seem to find that the
better-known WONTFIX and NOTABUG cover the range of cases.
I use it routinely as a polite version of WONTFIX for
[Finally returning to this issue. If your mail client doesn't thread
across this time span, see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/145105.html for
the previous part of the thread.]
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on
the currently
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
marking all the expired bugs
Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) said:
We have a number of options here which vary in implementation effort and
how much burden they impose on user and/or maintainer to get what they
want from an inadequate representation:
1. Status quo: hard to distinguish expired from WONTFIX.
2a.
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 16:43 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
propose as an enhancement by
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 18:33 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
We clearly
want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or
whiteboard field.
I'm not sure who we is, but I disagree. The generally accepted
definition of CLOSED is that the resolution is final unless subsequent
* Adam Williamson [03/09/2011 00:21] :
Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
propose as an enhancement by filing a bug
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 15:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 18:33 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
We clearly
want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or
whiteboard field.
I'm not sure who we is, but I disagree. The generally accepted
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected from the
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:14:08 +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
the
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The practical point is that F12
is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected from the
18 matches
Mail list logo
