On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:16:20 -0800, Quim Gil <quimgil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2012 07:13 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
The key point being that we don't ditch it
because we won't fix it, but
rather because we can't yet.
Any reason why this couldn't be NEW - LOWEST priority? As soon as you
can then you can raise the priority.
If you want to get rid of RESOLVED LATER. You
should first compile a
full history of bugs and make a list of all bugs that were once marked
RESOLVED LATER and then were given a new resolution.
http://bit.ly/YOMrSn
--
Quim
Things with the lowest priority should be things that "could" be fixed.
But we've got no reason to implement ourselves.
LATER should be things that for some technical reason outside our control,
right-now we cannot fix. They shouldn't be blended into "Lowest" list of
bugs that are possible but waiting for some enterprising 3rd party to take
on.
eg: Add HTML 5 semantic elements 'details' and 'summary' to Sanitizer
whitelist [
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29118]
RESOLVED LATER due to lack of browser support, waiting the months/years
till it is better adopted by browsers and we can defrost the bug.
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]