New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 12:28:51 PM3/26/07
to
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369544

In a few days, we plan to create a new "INCOMPLETE" resolution in
Bugzilla, taking advantage of the new "custom resolutions" feature.

This is basically for resolving bugs which have insufficient information
in them. Up to now, INVALID has been used, but semantically that's not
quite right, and it is a bit rude.

The name matches a resolution GNOME are already using; consistency is nice.

Gerv

Tony Mechelynck

unread,
Mar 27, 2007, 10:27:51 AM3/27/07
to

Sounds good. IIUC, the status will appear as RESOLVED INCOMPLETE, and after
supplying the missing information the bug will have to be REOPENED ?

Best regards,
Tony.
--
It is only people of small moral stature who have to stand on their
dignity.

David E. Ross

unread,
Mar 27, 2007, 3:22:55 PM3/27/07
to

Where would you have posted this announcement if the
<news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.dev.general> did not exist, as
proposed in bug #375426?

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 28, 2007, 5:22:31 AM3/28/07
to
David E. Ross wrote:
> Where would you have posted this announcement if the
> <news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.dev.general> did not exist, as
> proposed in bug #375426?

mozilla.dev.planning, where I have copied it. This group seems to be
picking up this sort of announcement.

If no-one is reading this group, we can either:

- Try and persuade everyone to
or
- Close it and use the groups they are reading

I agree that this logic can be taken to extremes, but if there's a
"general" group that no-one is using because most things have a better,
more specific home, it makes sense to close it.

Gerv

Tony Mechelynck

unread,
Mar 28, 2007, 8:14:42 AM3/28/07
to

Hm. I happen not to be subscribed to m.d.planning. Do you think everyone
should be? IMHO the low volume of a NG doesn't necessarily mean nobody's
reading it. You might want to replace m.d.general by m.d.announce but I think
I'd prefer the status quo (with m.d.general in place even if few people are
_posting_ to it).

Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
144. You eagerly await the update of the "Cool Site of the Day."

Benjamin Smedberg

unread,
Mar 28, 2007, 12:17:39 PM3/28/07
to
Tony Mechelynck wrote:

> Hm. I happen not to be subscribed to m.d.planning. Do you think everyone
> should be? IMHO the low volume of a NG doesn't necessarily mean nobody's
> reading it. You might want to replace m.d.general by m.d.announce but I
> think I'd prefer the status quo (with m.d.general in place even if few
> people are _posting_ to it).

Everyone who cares about milestones, schedules, and other planning should be
reading .planning.

There is concrete evidence that the majority of developers are not reading
this group, because there's nothing to be gained by reading it: it has no
topic, and is mainly filled with questions that ought to have been directed
at some other group. The noise/signal ratio is high.

--BDS

David E. Ross

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 8:55:26 PM4/23/07
to

I just closed an RFE bug report that I wrote some time ago. I wanted to
mark it WITHDRAWN, but the only Resolution options were FIXED, INVALID,
WONTFIX, and WORKSFORME. If you are adding , how about including
WITHDRAWN as a Resolution?

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997

Gervase Markham

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 6:01:55 AM4/25/07
to
David E. Ross wrote:
> I just closed an RFE bug report that I wrote some time ago. I wanted to
> mark it WITHDRAWN, but the only Resolution options were FIXED, INVALID,
> WONTFIX, and WORKSFORME. If you are adding , how about including
> WITHDRAWN as a Resolution?

WONTFIX is probably the correct resolution for a withdrawn RFE.

I think it's important to avoid resolution proliferation; people will
spend more time choosing which shade of meaning they want.

Gerv

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages