Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 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.
Currently the kernel bugzilla has a state called DEFERRED (with resolution
WILL_FIX_LATER) for this type of inactive bugs. Anyone who is interested
in these bugs can set the query to look at them; otherwise, they are not
on the active bug list. They are not closed either -- they are just
"deferred".
-
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 - 22:00:22 EST