On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 10:45 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 2.9.2011 22:54, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> > Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
> > were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
> > custom resolutions in the past. It's certain
Dne 3.9.2011 00:33, Matt McCutchen napsal(a):
> bugs would harmonize with the current RHEL policy. None of my 131 bugs
> have been marked CANTFIX [2]; maintainers seem to find that the
> better-known WONTFIX and NOTABUG cover the range of cases.
I use it routinely as a polite version of WONTFIX f
Dne 2.9.2011 22:54, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
> were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
> custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
> propose as an enhancement by filing
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 15:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 18:33 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>
> > > We clearly
> > > want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or
> > > whiteboard field.
> >
> > I'm not sure who "we" is, but I disagree. The generally
* Adam Williamson [03/09/2011 00:21] :
>
> Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
> were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
> custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
> propose as an enhancement by filing a bug
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 18:33 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > We clearly
> > want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or
> > whiteboard field.
>
> I'm not sure who "we" is, but I disagree. The generally accepted
> definition of CLOSED is that the resolution is final unless
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
> were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
> custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
> propose as an enhancement
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 16:43 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> >
> > > What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
> > > list of unexpired bugs. But ther
Matt McCutchen (m...@mattmccutchen.net) said:
> We have a number of options here which vary in implementation effort and
> how much burden they impose on user and/or maintainer to get what they
> want from an inadequate representation:
>
> 1. Status quo: hard to distinguish expired from WONTFIX.
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>
> > What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
> > list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
> > marking all the expired b
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
> list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
> marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on
> the currently maint
[Finally returning to this issue. If your mail client doesn't thread
across this time span, see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/145105.html for
the previous part of the thread.]
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:14:08 +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >> The practical point is that F12
>> >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>> >
>> >
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The practical point is that F12
> > is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>
> Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> expected f
> > On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> The practical point is that F12
> > >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
> > >
> > > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> The practical point is that F12
> >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
> >
> > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
>
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> The practical point is that F12
>> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>
> Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> expected f
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The practical point is that F12
> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
the proje
18 matches
Mail list logo
