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 >>>> 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 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 >>> bug exists and needs to be taken care of. >>> >> >> What is the benefit with this instead of keeping it open until they find >> time? I doubt for example bug days take LATER resolved bugs into account >> or user are likely to search for them when trying to find something to >> work on. >> > > I would vote for a LATER KEYWORD instead of a resolution. Really what > I would want when searching is to know what set of bugs I should be > working on short-term versus bugs I'd consider more like > 'project-work'. LATER is typically stuff that is: > - too big to do now, but may get covered in some kind of sprint or fixit. > - blocking on something else (EAPI, upstream revbump, etc.) > - too hard to do now, but may be easier in the future (kind of like > #2, but possibly unrelated) >
For #2 you can use dependencies. I have no problem adding a keyword as it keeps the bugs open. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
