From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11976 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2003 03:01:06 -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 11938 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2003 03:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2003 03:01:04 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b6) with ESMTP-TLS id 4092400; Sat, 31 May 2003 23:01:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 03:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Wolfgang Bangerth cc: Giovanni Bajo , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Sat, 31 May 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > Bugzilla presently offers lots of resolutions for RESOLVED PRs. These I > think are useful: > Fixed > Invalid > Duplicate > These are doubtful. I haven't seen a PR where someone said "We're never > going to fix this", but it won't hurt to have this; and WORKSFORME is not > a very strong statement: > Wontfix > Worksforme > > These I think are not useful: > Remind > Later > If a bug is not fixed now, it should remain open, not be closed and have a > special state. Dan, can you say who invented these states and why? Built into Bugzilla. > I don't > see any use for them, and by the rule of maximal simplicity, would like to > get rid of them if possible. I'll hide those two immediately. Did we ever come to consesus on whether we wanted VERIFIED and CLOSED? > > W. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu > www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ > > >