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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:18 EST