Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
References: <56EF0325.90203@gmail.com> <56EF1159.3090500@apache.org>
 <005b01d182fa$4d280bc0$e7782340$@acm.org>
 <CAGj3214iJz_Ysg494jaxcPx76vWfXCqeo1=_9Us6ZQ7iRoLNkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
Message-ID: <56F01CE1.2000505@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:10:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGj3214iJz_Ysg494jaxcPx76vWfXCqeo1=_9Us6ZQ7iRoLNkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 3/21/2016 8:59 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>> wrote:
>
>> I want to clarify this.
>>
>> I think the problem might be that "Resolved - Fixed" is being used
>> incorrectly. As far as I know, there are many cases where this resolution
>> is used where one of "Resolved - Not an Issue" (though not too often),
>> "Resolved - Irreproducible", "Resolved - Won't Fix", or "Resolved -
>> Obsolete" should be used.
>>
>> Is that what you are seeing, Kay?
>>
>
> ​Well  maybe so. In the past, I have used RESOLVED-FIXED to determine
> what's been committed to our source, thus leading to a Target Release.
> Yesterday, I started going through RESOLVED-FIXED items to be sure some of
> these fixed issued did have a Target Release. Some of these RESOLVED-FIXED
> issues seem to be either user support issues/questions that do not entail
> source code corrections at all, or similar type situations. In one of the
> cases I sited above, I think the issue originator marked it with
> RESOLVED-FIXED, and really i don't know if this was the right thing to do
> or not.
>
> So, we can use the new NONE (thank you Marcus!) as the Target Release, or
> do something else to ignore these types of issues for verification in a
> build.
> The problem is stemming from the use of BZ as both a code centric problem
> reporting mechanism and a user support tool.

I don't think it should be marked RESOLVED-FIXED unless it was actually
fixed, and therefore has a release in which the fix first appears. To
me, RESOLVED-FIXED with a target release of NONE is self-contradictory.

What is the objection to changing the resolution to reflect reality?

For example, if it was a user support issue that does not entail a
source code correction, shouldn't it be marked RESOLVED - NOT_AN_ISSUE
rather than RESOLVED - FIXED with a target date of NONE?

Patricia


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org