Marking zapped bugs

Matt McCutchen matt at
Fri Sep 2 22:33:33 UTC 2011

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hum, I didn't realize our resolutions were so customized, I thought they
> were the upstream ones; this is what I've been told when discussing
> custom resolutions in the past. It's certainly something you could
> propose as an enhancement by filing a bug against Bugzilla, then.

OK, I will do that and post the link here.  Any assessment of difficulty
provided by the Bugzilla team can inform a decision between 2a and 2b.

> > 2b. Co-opt an existing little-used custom resolution, e.g., CANTFIX
> > (semantically questionable on its face, but maybe reasonable in light of
> > the explanation on
> > ).
> As noted at the top of that page, that is the policy for RHEL, not for
> Fedora. Fedora policy is
> . It
> states only "The resolutions CANTFIX, WONTFIX, and WORKSFORME are for
> use by maintainers only, and are self-explanatory."

You are right.  But taking a step back, the project has the power to
change the policy to best meet its needs.  My point stands that the
resolution is little-used (less than 2% [1]), and its use for expired
bugs would harmonize with the current RHEL policy.  None of my 131 bugs
have been marked CANTFIX [2]; maintainers seem to find that the
better-known WONTFIX and NOTABUG cover the range of cases.


> > 3. Do not change the bug state, and have maintainers apply the same
> > conditions now used by the bug zapper on all of their searches.
> > Reducing mutable state is generally good in that it reduces the possible
> > ways for things to get out of whack.  But then it takes more work to see
> > whether a non-CLOSED bug is expired.
> >   3a. Like #3, but make it easier with a virtual EXPIRED resolution.
> > Probably an undesirable level of customization to Bugzilla.
> > 4. Add an "Expired" keyword or custom field, use it, and:
> >   4a. Continue to close the bugs WONTFIX.  Ugh, but I can use the
> > keyword/field in search and maybe even get it to show as a column on
> > search results.
> >   4b. Do not change the status, and have maintainers use the
> > keyword/field in their search.
> I think if we're going to change this, the only sensible change is to
> use a different CLOSED resolution. All the others seem like hacks which
> are likely to cause more trouble/confusion than they resolve.

Fair assessment.

> We clearly
> want to bugs to be CLOSED, not open with a quasi-closed keyword or
> whiteboard field.

I'm not sure who "we" is, but I disagree.  The generally accepted
definition of CLOSED is that the resolution is final unless subsequent
events invalidate the original rationale.  (C.f. the RHEL policy: "The
bug is considered dead, the resolution is correct.")  All it takes for
an expired bug to be reopened is for someone to have enough interest to
retest it in a maintained Fedora version.  To claim that this meets the
definition of CLOSED is a big stretch.  I believe that "expired" should
properly be its own major state alongside "open" and "closed", but we
have alternatives that are less radical and still solve the immediate
problem with search.


More information about the devel mailing list