[core-workflow] tracker 'resolution'

[R. David Murray]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:20:31 +0300, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti at gmail.com> wrote:
> IIUC this is what you are doing:
> 
> duplicate = duplicate
> not a bug = not a bug + rejected
> works for me = works for me (+ out of date?)
> fixed = fixed
> postponed = later + remind + postponed (+ out of date?)
> won't fix = wont fix
> 3rd party = 3rd party
> 
> This seems a reasonable request to me.

Yes.  It seems despite what I said in a previous message about keeping
it that people are OK with dropping "out of date" in favor of "fixed",
which is also fine with me.

> I've been trying to simplify the interface of the tracker and remove
> non-essential elements, and this would be a good step in that
> direction.  The next step could be "merging" this with the "closed"
> status so that you select the resolution once while you mark the issue
> as closed (or possible pending).

Yeah, simplifying that is what my proposal is about.  I need to finish
writing it ;)

> While doing these changes we should keep in mind what are all those
> fields useful for.  I can think of two main use cases:

Exactly.  The only fields we should have are those that are *useful*:
things that turn into something operationally.  Not just busy work :)

> 1) searching/filtering issues (both for finding specific issues or for
> analyzing tracker data);
> 2) informing users about the current situation of the issue;

Right.

> In general I don't think anyone needs such a fine-grained filtering
> (have you ever looked for "postponed" issues or wanted to know how
> many "later" issues there are?), and the rationale for closing the
> issue could be detailed in the message, so I'm +1 on the change you
> suggest.
> 
> > The ordering is currently mostly-alphabetical, I picked an ordering
> > that feels "logical" to me, but I'm not really attached to the ordering.
> >
> 
> Remember that there is also
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/DesiredTrackerFeatures which contain
> discussions and ideas about possible improvements to the interface.

Good point, I need to review that before finishing my for-discussion
proposal.

--David