Personally, I like having a "Postponed"/"Later" resolution at least available. WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be revisiting this bug unless it is re-raised by others. LATER = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, and we agree that it should be fixed, but don't have time right now. We will be voluntarily revisiting this soon. While we could arguably just dump both situations into WONTFIX, I think that would muddy the triage process pretty heavily, making it more difficult to track bugs we intend to revisit. That said, it IS easy for LATER to become a procrastination paradise, where it gets resolved and then never thought of again. Would it be worthwhile to set up an automated notice when a LATER bug ages past a certain date (say, a month without being touched), instead of axing the resolution? Thanks, Nabil On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Diederik van Liere <dvanliere(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

I suppose that depends on the particular project. From the sounds of it, the discussion is about removing LATER as a resolution option across the entire database, including some projects that do have specific people driving development (some extensions, for instance). There is also absolutely no reason newcomers or others couldn't do a search for postponed bugs, and use that as a jumping off point for contributing to a project. You aren't removing that option to contribute from anyone. Yes, you could arguably just keep it open, but that gets into the same issue as stuffing everything into WONTFIX, where it is making it more difficult to track which bugs are fresh, and which are extant bugs you'd like to get to, but either don't have cycles for or are otherwise blocked. The point of having the additional granularity is to make it easier to keep the database organized. Nabil On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, [See my comments inline] Quim: Thanks for the wonderful analogy and bringing this up again. The question boils down to: How and why do people use RESOLVED LATER? The same topic was discussed one year ago in http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-November/056583.html and other projects had similar problems with RESOLVED LATER, e.g. see http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t83053.html Upstream Bugzilla developers removed RESOLVED LATER for Bugzilla ⪖3.0: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13534 One posting from last year's thread also stated "Currently the LATER acts as a blackhole and there is no structured process to re-evaluate these kind of bugs." (If importing from the compressed archives wasn't broken I could even tell you who wrote that.) On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 02:24 +0100, Krinkle wrote: +1. My interpretation of potential meanings from the top of my head: * Meaning of "priority = lowest" (and potentially "Target Milestone = Mysterious Future" if TMs were really used). Using this obviously would not remove the report from being listed in the search results for open tickets, and I assume that people are lazy to run more complicated searches in Bugzilla to exclude those. Or rephrase this to "Bugzilla makes it hard to run useful queries" if you think that you're not lazy, but that it's the technology's fault. * Meaning of "RESOLVED WONTFIX". But as that sounds harsh the original reporter could disagree and start discussing, and discussing takes time the WONTFIXer would like to avoid spending. Social problem that requires explaining well why WONTFIX was set. * Meaning of "depends on UPSTREAM". We won't fix it ourselves but wait for an upstream fix. We won't backport the upstream fix but wait until we upgrade servers to an entire new Ubuntu version which provides a newer package that includes the fix. The Mer project uses "RESOLVED WAITING_FOR_UPSTREAM" for this. If I miss meanings, please provide them. Currently I'm in favor of killing RESOLVED LATER (which requires retriaging these tickets) and introducing a RESOLVED WAITING_FOR_UPSTREAM status for the latter case. andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:16:20 -0800, Quim Gil <quimgil(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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]

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:10 -0800, Quim Gil wrote: After reading Krinkle's and your email I agree that there is no urgent need for it. This could still be reevaluated in the future. andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Hi Daniel, On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 22:56 -0800, Daniel Friesen wrote: Is "outside of our control" that different from "we cannot or will not fix it for other reasons, like missing manpower / different priorities etc" that it deserves marking such reports differently? What's the gain? (Not sure myself, hence throwing this question into the room.) If we cannot fix a report for a reason beyond our control it's again a status like "waiting for upstream" (or "waiting for something to happen outside of the WM universe"), isn't it? Sounds like a candidate for lowest priority if you don't want to spend time on it in the next two years but maybe afterwards. It's not an issue that got "resolved" for good (that's my interpretation of a "resolution" - it should be for good, theoretically). Of course Bugzilla allows you to revert the RESOLVED status, but to me that's when a mistake has been made (commit didn't fix the issue, etc). On the contrary, "RESOLVED LATER" sounds like a "resolution" that ALWAYS has to get reverted... "later". andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

On 11/13/2012 11:54 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: The above exchange really confuses me. I'm not sure what else silence could mean when someone explicitly tells you (as Andre has) "If no one voices any objections, I'm going to do this." Could you clarify? And, if you think silence doesn't mean approval, wouldn't you be better served by speaking up an voicing your concerns? It certainly seems like you'd be better served by clearly stating your objection than by a terse reply such as you've given. Mark. -- http://hexmode.com/ Any time you have "one overriding idea", and push your idea as a superior ideology, you're going to be wrong. ... The fact is, reality is complicated -- Linus Torvalds <http://hexm.de/mc>

On 11/13/2012 02:07 PM, Nathan Larson wrote: Good point. It still has some negative connotations, though. Stick to single syllable words: "If no one says anything, this is what I will do." -- http://hexmode.com/ Any time you have "one overriding idea", and push your idea as a superior ideology, you're going to be wrong. ... The fact is, reality is complicated -- Linus Torvalds <http://hexm.de/mc>

On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 14:16 -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote: That's definitely a better wording for what I wanted to express. Thanks. andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

2012/11/13 Quim Gil &lt;quimgil(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: I think somebody (or possibly a few somebodies with knowledge of different parts of the code) should at least quickly scan these lists, since some of the things marked as LATER might have been fixed in the meantime (and nobody found the bug to close, since it was RESOLVED) or have been made irrelevant (such as https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34329 which I found skimming the list a few days ago). -- Matma Rex

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Quim Gil &lt;quimgil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I apparently read this entirely differently than you: as written, that sounds more like "community members need to adjust their Bugzilla queries to exclude LOWEST/UPSTREAM". At which point, why are we removing RESOLVED/LATER again? You're moving things from one bucket to another bucket, but doesn't actually raise visibility or alter how we think about the bugs. Nabil