Policy on KDE3 bugs?

John Layt johnlayt at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 12 17:07:54 BST 2010

On Thursday 12 August 2010 01:09:46 you wrote:
> Here are some thoughts from my side:
> * if you find a KDE 3 bug that is fixed in (or no longer applicable to) KDE
> 4, close it; we have been doing that for a long time already

Not everyone does, there are dead KDE3 apps that still have hundreds of bugs 
open, we don't seem to have a consistent practice (not that anything in bko is 
really consistent :-)

Also, it's not always clear what the close status should be.  For example, 
Kpdf or KGhostview bugs that are not present in Okular, are those Fixed or 
Unmaintained?  Do we even bother checking some 8 year old gv or xpdf rendering 
error or complaint about fonts looking ugly?  If you ask the reporter, how 
long should you wait for a reply before closing, given many email address will 
be stale by now?

[Not picking on Okular here, just an obvious example]

> * unfortunately many bugs (and nearly all wishes) from KDE 3 that are still
> open are also valid for KDE 4

Yes, there's lots of good info in there, just not very well organised.  They 
should still be reviewed at some stage to decide if they are valid for KDE4, 
and if not closed in such a way as to not upset reporters too much.

> * I don't like mass closing old bugs because of this; except for
> unmaintained stuff of course

Not automated no, but if someone methodically works through an app then I see 
no harm.

Huh, maybe I am advocating maintainers actively hunting them down, it depends 
on the numbers and how much noise they do cause.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20100812/4c3c4ba4/attachment.htm>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list