From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ny0IY-0004t2-LZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:09:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A56DE0B5B; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C405DE0B35 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (anw37.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.26.104.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C971B4002 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BB713D5.7000909@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:09:25 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? References: <4BB70F5E.7010101@gentoo.org> <4BB71287.6010400@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BB71287.6010400@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig716F8880065EE8D2DE077C49" X-Archives-Salt: 1e4e23f4-4112-4067-bf81-2df495f8cb0b X-Archives-Hash: 54d54da0bdeaaf574c2be2a9abfdef46 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig716F8880065EE8D2DE077C49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/3/10 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: > On 04/03/10 10:50, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it jus= t >> 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 this: >> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113121#c21 >> >> Not applicable to the bug above but in general our social contract say= s: >> "We will not hide problems" >=20 > Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs th= at are > not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID isn't appl= icable in > this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid from the begining). Wouldn't WORKSFORME apply in that case? Just renaming the resolutions doesn't gain us much. Reducing the number of possible resolutions does, I'd say. --------------enig716F8880065EE8D2DE077C49 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAku3E94ACgkQuUQtlDBCeQI3tACdE7wiLxZN4BgPL4aO7jS2ahA5 OFkAn0t5DT9v3iuSQ4GdXVurk1iPVMvY =vGns -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig716F8880065EE8D2DE077C49--