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

2010-04-06 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Tuesday 06 of April 2010 07:47:17 Rémi Cardona wrote: How about changing how users search instead? Let's make the small search box search for ALL bugs instead of just opened ones. *That* should help tremendously. +1, maybe even enable it by default. That could reduce dupes imho. That,

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

2010-04-06 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:47:17 +0200 Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote: How about changing how users search instead? Let's make the small search box search for ALL bugs instead of just opened ones. *That* should help tremendously. Adding additional bug types to search for by default - ok.

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

2010-04-05 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes. If we start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands. What's the big deal? You know you'll be

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

2010-04-05 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: 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

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

2010-04-05 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Denis Dupeyron calc...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open. How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes. We already advise our users to check RESO

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

2010-04-05 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le 03/04/2010 11:50, Petteri Räty a écrit : 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

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

2010-04-04 Thread Petteri Räty
On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit : 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

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

2010-04-04 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
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

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

2010-04-04 Thread Petteri Räty
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

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

2010-04-04 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Samstag 03 April 2010 12:27:38 schrieb Krzysztof Pawlik: Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs that are not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't applicable in this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining).

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

2010-04-04 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:50 +0300, 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 would like to avoid

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

2010-04-03 Thread Krzysztof Pawlik
On 04/03/10 10:50, 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 would like to avoid things like

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

2010-04-03 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: On 04/03/10 10:50, 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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Krzysztof Pawlik
On 04/03/10 11:09, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: On 04/03/10 10:50, 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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Petteri Räty
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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Alec Warner
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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Petteri Räty
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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Samstag, den 03.04.2010, 12:50 +0300 schrieb Petteri Räty: 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

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

2010-04-03 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit : 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? You are

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

2010-04-03 Thread Alec Warner
2010/4/3 Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org: Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit : 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