[Project_owners] Additional resolution for bugzilla.mozdev.org

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com
Sat May 5 00:18:07 PDT 2007

Philip Chee wrote:
> Hi,
> In a couple of recent Flashblock bugs I would have liked to resolve as
> NOTOURBUG or perhaps MOZILLAORGBUG since the bugs were in the
> flashplayer code or in the gecko plugin code and not in Flashblock. 

My father ran into this problem in 2001 and asked Pete and David per 
e-mail for advise, and they replied with: "HJ, can't you add [MOB] or 
something in the bug summary?" (I've read this some time ago) and we're 
still doing that.

Yes, sometimes bugs mysteriously disappear after some time, but some of 
them aren't bugs but *features* if you ask Boris Zbarsky ;)

> In:
> <http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#resolution> there
> appears to be a "MOVED" resolution that doesn't appear in the current
> bugzilla.mozdev.org picklist. In any case MOVED isn't entirely correct.
> Also how about a "OBSOLETE" resolution? I want to clear out a bug that
> was against an ancient version of Flashblock, an ancient verison of
> Mozilla Suite, and a obsolete version of OSX. But WORKSFORME or INVALID
> isn't 100% suitable.

I vote for "OBSOLETE".

p.s. What about adding keyword "regression" to 
http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/describekeywords.cgi ?


More information about the Project_owners mailing list