[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issues list status

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: Issues list status
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:42:30 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

Am 15.09.2015 um 15:39 schrieb David Kastrup:
Phil Holmes <address@hidden> writes:

A comment and a question about the status field of the issues list.

Comment: with Google code, the status was automatically set to "Accepted"
for issues manually entered by a registered user.  I see no reason for not
continuing this policy, but it does mean that bug squad members (and
anyone else entering issues) needs to remember to set the status manually.

Question: there's a number of patches from _ages_ ago
labelled "needs_work".  I believe we should change them to "abandoned",
but I also think that there's no point in leaving them
as "new", "accepted" or "started".  Seems to me that any with
patch:abandoned should be marked with invalid status.  Does the list
No.  If a particular patch was not developed sufficiently to deal with a
particular problem, that does not make the problem magically go away.

If a patch has been abandoned for lack of skill or time, Status should go back to Accepted. Though it can’t be said in general: if it has been abandoned because the developer decided it didn’t make sense, or if it has become obsolete through other development, then Status:Invalid will be the right choice.

I also think that we should deprecate Type:Patch. It doesn’t say anything on the area in which the patch operates; it’s redundant if Patch: is set at the same time; and the difference if an issue has had an associated patch from the beginning or later on is a mere administrative one and has no relevance for dealing with the issue.

Another question is the replacement of GC’s Blocking functionality. James, you added 'Labels:Invalid, Dupe of 4584' to issue 4578. I think Invalid is redundant and 'Dupe of…' is too colloquial for my taste. I have changed it into Labels:Mergedinto_4584, which I think fits the other naming schemes. It doesn’t show up in the search for '4584', but for 'labels:mergedinto*'.

Yours, Simon

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]