From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12580 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 15:36:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12563 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 15:36:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.153) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 15:36:16 -0000 Received: from twcny.rr.com (syr-24-24-18-104.twcny.rr.com [24.24.18.104]) by ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4NFaGik009777; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ECE3FE7.7020203@twcny.rr.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:41:00 -0000 From: Nathanael Nerode User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giovanni Bajo CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes References: <20030523071817.GA17455@doctormoo> <3eb901c32106$c561d7b0$c64f2697@bagio> <407601c32111$2dc742e0$c64f2697@bagio> In-Reply-To: <407601c32111$2dc742e0$c64f2697@bagio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02099.txt.bz2 Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > >>As a side-note: I moved several PRs of mine to RESOLVED, incorrectly >>assuming this would "close" them. >> >>Clearly, this was operator error on my side, but it's a data point that >>we might consider removing the distinction between RESOLVED and CLOSED. > > > I don't think it's your "fault", because this is exactly what Bugzilla lets > you do right now. I'm doing the same as well right now. It's not such a big > issue because we have so many bugs in RESOLVED status, so a batch change is > needed anyway, somewhere in the future. > > Right now, in order to change to CLOSED, you need to edit the bug two times, > and this is suboptimal. If we agree for removing the distinction, we'll > surely ask Danny to update the system accordingly (the best way is to modify > the commit actions so that they immediatly switch to the CLOSED status > instead of switching to the RESOLVED status). If we keep 'verified' (as I suggested), I would still approve of this. The commit actions would have "Close, setting resolution to X" and "Verify fixed (but not in a release), setting resolution to X". The "resolved" state is not useful in the long run to a project with no separate QA team. > Giovanni Bajo