Subject: Re: query re Bugzilla's CLOSED+LATER
From: Jesper Skov (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 17 2001 - 10:31:27 CST
On Sat, 2001-12-15 at 16:23, Piotr Banski wrote:
> It seems to me that the combination of CLOSED and LATER (or
> REMIND, for that matter) stretches the semantics of CLOSED too far.
FWIW I agree. But as far as I can tell, it's how Mozilla people handle
And unfortunately making different states than what comes as default is
a pain. Hopefully it's something that will change in Bugzilla 3, but
that's a project far far into the future.
I think we'd probably be better of setting the milestone of such bugs to
'future' and tell developers to set their default search to only include
bugs with milestones: ---, 1.0, and 1.2. That way, bugs we are not
planning to fix in the near term do not clutter the search results -
which is, I believe, the reason for CLOSE/LATER'ing such bugs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Dec 17 2001 - 10:31:29 CST