On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who > should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally > nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get > stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no > matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down. >
I think that a lot of this discussion centers around changing the bug states while assuming that developers will continue to use the same views they already use. Today developers tend to use views that exclude resolved bugs. Perhaps tomorrow they'll tend to use views that exclude bugs that are resolved or waiting for stabilization. Perhaps these views will become the defaults. Or maybe we leave the states alone and add a new field to track whether the bug is stable on any/all/each arch (not sure which is best). One concern which I think is legitimate is the extra bookkeeping. If we're going to track a bunch of bugs through a long stabilization cycle (think desktop environments), we don't want devs to have to spend hours figuring out which bugs can be closed out. And we don't want them skipping that step either. It might make sense to tag bugs with a version and then have the states automatically update when the bugs are released. -- Rich
