Setting 4.14 PIM bugs to UNMAINTAINED

[Martin Steigerwald]

Dear Denis,

First off I want to tell you I am very impressed and grateful for your work.

I did some bug triaging myself and set quite some KDEPIM + Nepomuk related 
bugs to WAITINGFORINFO – which can I think all or almost all just be closed 
for now. And I know from that that this is real work. I was really surprised 
by the amount of bugzilla mails you generated, that I wonder whether you use a 
kind of scripting for that.

Am Freitag, 20. Januar 2017, 23:56:35 CET schrieb kdenis at posteo.de:
> Dear pims,
> 
> I'd like arrange the second stage of my KDE PIM bug cleaning campaign. This
> time, I would close all KDE PIM bugs that have never been confirmed for a
> Frameworks-based version. I would skip the WAITINGFORINFO step and set them
> directly to UNMAINTAINED. Of course, I plan to leave a comment on every
> closed bug again, offering to reopen if the bug is still valid, and
> explaining the whole process.

I am not a PIM dev, but from a other and bug triager view I´d be okay with 
that. I think its important to offer to reopen the bug as I think not in all 
cases it is good to report a new one in case its still valid.

> 
> A seemingly large portion of users still uses KDE PIM 4.14. The number of
> affected bugs would be huge as well. That's why I want to be extra sure that
> all PIM devs are OK with my plan.

Well the current Debian Stable aka Jessie still has 4.14.1 of KDEPIM. But 
there should be a shift once Debian Stretch gets released which is hopefully 
soon enough. It has at least 16.04.3, which is also outdated by now, but 
packaging a newer version was blocked by properly packaging Qt Webengine which 
was a major and difficult task according to what I read on #debian-qt-kde IRC 
channel. Unfortunately it seems to be to late to go for any later version for 
the next Dabien Stable aka Stretch.

> I'll gladly take any feedback on this. If you think that closing those bugs
> is OK, does the same apply to wishes? Is this delicate enough to even
> discuss the wording of the closing comment? Or do I just worry way too
> much? ;)

I think for wishes it might be good to quickly check whether the functionality 
is implemented meanwhile or not if possible without taking to much time. Of 
course closing them with a friendly message to retest and offering to opening 
again could also work and offload some of the work to the bug reports.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin