No "later" status in Launchpad

[dotancohen]

Competing bug tracking software, such as Bugzilla, have a "later" status for bugs that cannot be fixed at the moment of reporting. An example of a current bug in Launchpad that needs such as status is here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ffmpeg-debian/+bug/93849

Therefore, I propose that such a status be added to Launchpad.

[Ursula Junque (ursinha)]

Hi,

One effective approach is to close the bug as won't fix and then reopen it later. As commented out by the people in the bug you've mentioned, having a thousand bugs opened for something that is apparently missing is pointless for the developers.

Thanks,

Úrsula

[dotancohen (dotancohen)]

Closing as Wont Fix is not a solution to a "later" problem. Wont Fix is just what is sounds like: a 'problem' or suggestion that will not be implemented. As is the case with the bug I mentioned, the devs want to fix it but the current license of the software needed is not FOSS. However, they want to fix it and intend to do that when a FOSS implementation is available (it is in active development). So the Wont Fix resolution is inaccurate. It needs a Later resolution.

So far as I am concerned, as you seem worried about leaving too many bugs open, you can have Later be considered as a Closed resolution.

[Diogo Matsubara (matsubara)]

We don't have evidence enough that this new status would actually be helpful. You're suggesting that the "Later" status could be a closed bug status. That would work exactly the same way won't fix works so I don't see the point of create yet another status.

The fact that a bug is marked as won't fix doesn't mean it won't never be fixed. A won't fix bug could be re-opened later when the situation change, which would cover the use case your mentioning.

[dotancohen (dotancohen)]

> We don't have evidence enough that this new status would
> actually be helpful.

I have provided a typical use case. Would you like other use cases?

> You're suggesting that the "Later" status could be a closed bug
> status. That would work exactly the same way won't fix works so
> I don't see the point of create yet another status.

The difference is that "Later" bugs could be reviewed and reopened when the time is right (new software is available, users' needs change, etc.).

> The fact that a bug is marked as won't fix doesn't
> mean it won't never be fixed.

Then why call it Wont Fix?

> A won't fix bug could be re-opened later when the situation
> change, which would cover the use case your mentioning.

If need be I can list precedent (on the KDE and Mozilla bugtrackers) of a feature being requested, only to be closed as a dupe of a Wont Fix three years prior. Wont Fix means just what it says, unless someone could point me to an official Launchpad document that defines it differently.

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

Bugzilla does not have a "LATER" status: it used to, but it was removed in 2006 because it was misleading.<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13534>

I agree it doesn't make sense to use "Won't Fix" for a valid bug report, or a request for a desired feature. However, "Later" would have exactly the same problem: bug reports with that status would get lost, and duplicates would be reported. I suggest using a milestone instead.

I don't think it makes sense to use "Won't Fix" for this bug report itself, either, because that falsely implies that the report describes a valid defect, when it does not. "Won't Fix" has become a euphemism for "Invalid".

[dotancohen (dotancohen)]

The KDE bugtracker still has a LATER status, though I do not know if it considers LATER bugs to be closed or open.

The Bugzilla thread that you link to states that LATER was replaced with milestones (which did not exist when LATER was incorporated). I do not see how to assign a milestone to a bug in Launchpad, though maybe my permission levels do not allow that. I cannot find any documentation to confirm or deny that it is a permissions issue, either.

In any case, if there is resistance to the inclusion of the LATER status, then I will not push the issue. Thanks.