Re: Bugzilla bug tracking database for 2.5 now available.

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>]

Em Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 04:54:58PM -0500, Jeff Garzik escreveu:
> Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> >One thing we've done before in other bug-tracking systems was to create
> >a "STALE" state (or something similar) for this type of bug. So it
> >wouldn't get closed (I have seen this done as a closing resolution, but
> >I think that's a bad idea), but it wouldn't be in the default searches
> >either ... you could just select it if you wanted it ... does that sound
> >sane? (obviously we don't need this yet, but might be a good plan
> >longer-term).
 
> Personally...  if they really are bugs, I would rather keep them open, 
> even in the absence of a maintainer...   maybe that's not scalable, but 
> I would rather not auto-expire things which really are bugs.  The 
> maintainer (or "someone who cares") may not appear until the next stable 
> series, for example.  Vendors do that alot.

Jeff, ok, so we could do as vendors: mark the ticket as LATER, or whatever
that doesnt make clearly stale tickets that nobody is looking appear on
the default queries.

If somebody is _so_ interested in a particular feature he/she can look for
tickets marked LATER, add comments and state that he/she is working on it,
provide more info, etc.
 
> 'stale' may be a decent compromise if people disagree with my logic, 
> though...

:-)

- Arnaldo