|
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 agree?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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |