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 there are ways to achieve that other than > > > marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on > > > the currently maintained Fedora versions, but it becomes tedious to > > > configure that, which is where a virtual EXPIRED resolution exposed by > > > Bugzilla would come in handy. > > > > Mostly your proposal makes sense, > > Thanks for the response. > > > but we're trying very hard to stick to > > upstream Bugzilla since 3.x, as heavy customization of 2.x caused more > > problems than it solved. So we're reluctant to add resolutions and > > statuses that don't exist upstream - even if Mozilla have hacked up > > their own copy of their own upstream bug reporting system to add > > resolutions... > > I don't buy that: Red Hat Bugzilla currently has 4 upstream resolutions > to 7 custom ones. Are all the custom resolutions actively being phased > out? Otherwise, can you give some examples to illustrate the marginal > harm likely to occur if an 8th custom resolution is added? 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 against Bugzilla, then. > 2b. Co-opt an existing little-used custom resolution, e.g., CANTFIX > (semantically questionable on its face, but maybe reasonable in light of > the explanation on > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status ). As noted at the top of that page, that is the policy for RHEL, not for Fedora. Fedora policy is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED . It states only "The resolutions CANTFIX, WONTFIX, and WORKSFORME are for use by maintainers only, and are self-explanatory." > 3. Do not change the bug state, and have maintainers apply the same > conditions now used by the bug zapper on all of their searches. > Reducing mutable state is generally good in that it reduces the possible > ways for things to get out of whack. But then it takes more work to see > whether a non-CLOSED bug is expired. > 3a. Like #3, but make it easier with a virtual EXPIRED resolution. > Probably an undesirable level of customization to Bugzilla. > 4. Add an "Expired" keyword or custom field, use it, and: > 4a. Continue to close the bugs WONTFIX. Ugh, but I can use the > keyword/field in search and maybe even get it to show as a column on > search results. > 4b. Do not change the status, and have maintainers use the > keyword/field in their search. I think if we're going to change this, the only sensible change is to use a different CLOSED resolution. All the others seem like hacks which are likely to cause more trouble/confusion than they resolve. We clearly want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or whiteboard field. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
