Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

2010-04-12 Thread Petteri Räty
On 04/12/2010 02:20 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200 Christian Faulhammer fa...@gentoo.org wrote: Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org: 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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

2010-04-11 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200 Christian Faulhammer fa...@gentoo.org wrote: Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org: 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.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

2010-04-07 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org: 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 would like to avoid things like

[gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla?

2010-04-05 Thread Peter Hjalmarsson
mån 2010-04-05 klockan 03:54 +0300 skrev Mart Raudsepp: The problem is really the RESOLVED connotation and the hiding that goes along with that on searches, etc. The LATER status itself can be useful when used properly (more as ASSIGNED LATER). In the lack of that some bigger teams might