On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:48:36PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > >This would lend support to using "DEFERRED". > >Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments. For right now, I'm going to > >leave all the bugs in NEEDINFO state while I reflect on everything. > I disagree. DEFERRED == PROCRASTINATED_WITH_NO_ACTUAL_TARGET Well, to be blunt, as not-@-redhat, that kinda feels like the honest thing to be saying for a lot of these bugs. > If something is going to be done, it should be left open, and > assigned to an active target tracking bug, such as FC4Target, > FC5Target, etc. and an explicit "goal" defined for that target. This would clearly be *better*, but are there resources to do it? Or the commitment? [...] > "DEFERRED" essentially amounts to "indefinitely procrastinated > with no goal or solid decision being made". Our team have > specifically been avoiding such indecision as much as possible > for the last 6 months or so, trying to make solid decisions > with each phase of a bug's life, to both reduce the active bug > list, and to reduce the lifespan of bugs to a minimum. And if I remember right without doing a bunch of bugzilla searches right now, there are few if any pre-FC3 xorg.org or xgl-maint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx bugs in open or "limbo" states. And only a handful for FC3. So assuming that's the team you're talking about, awesome job -- and it lends a lot of credibility to what you're saying. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> Current office temperature: 81 degrees Fahrenheit.
