Hi Daniel,
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 22:56 -0800, Daniel Friesen 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.
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?
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.
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