Reverting R490:abfdd65f0c85: Use URLs in multiget requests as returned by the Server for Kolab users

[Valorie Zimmerman]

Thanks much for your speedy answers!

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 2:02 AM Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:

> Hi Valorie,
>
> On Monday, 14 October 2019 04:28:59 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> > Hello PIMsters,
> >
> > We (the CWG ) have gotten a very well-reasoned and outraged email from a
> > passionate KDE and PIM user, who can no longer use their calendar because
> > of:
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386985
> > [2] https://phabricator.kde.org/D8843
> >
> > Can you please either add back the reverted patch that fixed the problem
> > for a multitude of users, or help Kolab fix their issue, or ?
> >
> > It really is not OK to favor users of a particular Kolab server over many
> > other users who do not use this server.
> >
> > If there is more behind this, please explain it so we can clarify this to
> > our users.
>
> it is of course understandably frustrating when hit by this issue and thus
> having no access to ones calendar, I think everyone agrees that this
> should be
> fixed.
>
> However, before jumping to conclusions, let's review what happened
> (looking at
> D8443):
> - D8443 is proposed, reviewed and integrated in November 2017.
> - Within a week a regression is discovered, namely it breaking access to
> some
> Kolab servers (because the people running master happen to use that, if
> that's
> actually the only affected server is actually unknown I think).
> - Given the short timeframe to the 17.12 release and a lack of a fix or
> even a
> full analysis of the problem and its impact, the patch get reverted.
> - Nothing happens for about a year
> - In Nov 2018 discussion restarts about how to find out what is actually
> wrong
> here.
> - Discussion stalls in Feb 27 with David providing a diagnostic patch,
> asking
> someone affected to apply that and provide the resulting output, which
> never
> happened.
>

If I can speak for the outraged user, it is the delay along with the
perceived reasoning for the quick reversion of a patch that briefly made
their calendar(s) *work*.


> It is also worth noting that this isn't a "a particular Kolab server" vs.
> "many other users", far from it. The current code works perfectly fine
> with
> many other servers out there, such as Nextcloud. In fact nobody I'm aware
> of
> in the PIM team even has access to an affected server, which is what makes
> it
> difficult to work on a patch.
>

Right.

D8443 ended with a patch to test for anyone who has access to an affected
> server so we can progress that. Not doing that and instead asking for a
> patch
> to be applied that breaks things for other users doesn't seem like an
> appropriate way forward to me.
>
> Regards,
> Volker


If I might point out that not all users know how to apply a patch to test
it, or to fork the code so that they have a working copy. If we want *lots
more users* of our code, we have to keep that in mind.

Thank you again for your quick answers,

Valorie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/attachments/20191014/c4da6505/attachment-0001.html>