Status: Resolved Later

[Kevin Benton]

> > I'm wondering - does it make more sense to create a pending status with
> > a reason code than to change status to resolved later because the issue
> > (if set to resolved later) in my interpretation, really isn't resolved,
> > but instead, put on the "back burner."
> 
> Why not make a priority level for back burner and not change the status?

That's a very good point.  As a person who is also responsible for tracking
process flow, I don't want to impact the priority / severity levels just
because something is pending.  A number of different pending statuses come
to mind, but all of them revolve around the developer waiting for action
outside their control as it relates directly to the bug in question.

> > It seems to me that a resolved status should point to the issue is
> > resolved pending verification, and no more work needs to be done to fix
> > it.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Pending as a status, to me, says that work may still need to be done
> > pending some factor.
> 
> Why does pending need to be its own status?

See above.  For status tracking, having a status of pending helps developers
focus on what's hot at the moment.  It also helps managers look more closely
at how the manager's developers are utilizing their time.

> > Pending verification doesn't seem like a good status either because it
> > suggests that the developers still have more work to do after
> > verification is done.  If more work has to be done after verification,
> > then verification must be re-done.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Anyway, just a few musing/ramblings on that particular process.
> 
> Musing is good.
> 
> --
> </chris>
> 
> "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the
> ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers."
> - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=kevin.benton@amd.com>