No interest in bug reports of older versions of KDEPIM/Akonadi that are not older than a year anymore?

[Sandro Knauß]

Hi,

I'm really not happy with the proposal to close all bugs within a short period 
of time. Most of the bugs raised from old version are still valid. I can fully 
find it reasonable to ask the reporter to try a new version, if code was 
touched in a specific area that improve the situation. So far most of the bug 
reports will just closed, because the reporter will be upset because the 
situation does not improve or they are unable to test a new version. I would 
say one or two years is a timeframe, where it is likely that things improved 
without noticing it.

sandro

> Daniel Vrátil - 29.04.19, 10:28:
> > On Sunday, 28 April 2019 17:07:20 CEST Christophe Giboudeaux wrote:
> […]
> 
> > > > However, 18.08 is not even a year old.
> > > 
> > > and 18.12 + 19.04 were released since then. So, yes, it's obsolete.
> > > Backporting fixes to these old branches would most likely mean
> > > introducing regressions and/or build issues.
> > > 
> > > If a distribution wants to keep on providing obsolete software, it's
> > > also its responsibility to backport the fixes. (which is close to
> > > impossible for pim for various reasons).
> > 
> > I appreciate your effort to keep our bugzilla clean, but I think it's
> > better to ask the reporter if they are able to reproduce the issue on
> > a newer version of PIM and move the bug to "WAITINGFORINFO" to give
> > the reporter some time to update their system, setup a VM with recent
> > PIM or whatever and re-test the issue. If there's no response in a
> > reasonable amount of time (month, two?), the bug can be closed as
> > obsolete. But just throwing a possibly unfixed bug away simply
> > because the reporter is unable to test on a newer version right away
> > because they run a conservative distribution is not the best way to
> > keep them reporting more issues in the future,  IMHO.
> 
> Sleeping over things helps.
> 
> I now found what exactly it was that triggered my reaction: It was not
> mainly the closing of the bug report, but how I received it. While
> Christophe's closing comment can be read as kind of "neutral", I
> received it as harsh and unfriendly. I thought that "my contributions as
> tester" are not appreciated.
> 
> So wording mattered for me. That is why when I triage bug reports, I try
> to find some friendly wording and thank the reporter.
> 
> I agree that closing as "WAITINGFORINFO" would be more respectful of the
> fact that not every reporter always has the time or resources to test
> with the latest version straight away. And as far as I am aware
> "WAITINGFORINFO" bugs are auto-closed after a certain time meanwhile.
> 
> That written, I know I can reopen a bug any time I am able to test with
> a more recent version. So there is not all that much of a difference.
> 
> So for me it was more about how I received the wording, instead of about
> the actual action of closing the bug, even tough I still think closing
> as "WAITINGFORINFO" is more appropriate.
> 
> Thanks,