Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22903 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2008 05:13:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Aug 2008 05:13:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 68715 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2008 05:13:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 68664 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2008 05:13:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 68653 invoked by uid 99); 2 Aug 2008 05:13:31 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:13:31 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [202.170.160.133] (HELO geiger.vandervecken.com) (202.170.160.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:12:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chien.geoffthorpe.net) by geiger.vandervecken.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KP9NF-0004mX-Jo; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:09:49 +0000 Received: from work.geoffthorpe.net (work [192.168.5.121]) by chien.geoffthorpe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432672AAAA9; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 01:03:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Geoff Thorpe To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41364] chunk-size contains space Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 01:09:46 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "William A. Rowe, Jr." References: <20080801223111.ADBDB234C18C@brutus.apache.org> <4893A194.1090203@rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: <4893A194.1090203@rowe-clan.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808020109.47120.geoff@geoffthorpe.net> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: geoff@geoffthorpe.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on geiger.vandervecken.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Friday 01 August 2008 19:51:48 William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > bugzilla@apache.org wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41364 > > > > > > Roy T. Fielding changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >--- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED > > I really wonder if RESOLVED vs CLOSED makes any sense to an open source > community. > > While this is a sensible division of labor between dev and QA, we don't > have two distinct groups of individuals. > > Should we simply dump CLOSED from the the list (or dump RESOLVED) and > answer the question only once when we believe it to be fixed? It's not > as though the user can't confirm the fix themselves and reopen, when > appropriate. Or allow status to be moved directly to CLOSED without passing through RESOLVED first. I've seen bugzilla scenarios in which tickets have been RESOLVED awaiting the owner to CLOSE them, and others where the relevant person has CLOSED it because that's what makes sense. I agree with the observation, but I think RESOLVED and CLOSED are sometimes useful distinctions, so mightn't it be best to let the ticket-editor choose? Cheers, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char...