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

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hi Daniel, hi Christophe.

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,
-- 
Martin