Il 14/09/26 11:57, Jouni Äijälä via Development ha scritto:
Error database cleaning process is going forward and Qt 4 bugs are now closed. The next step is to continue the process gradually with Qt 5 bugs starting from 5.0.* Qt version. If you know that a bug reported by you can be reproduced also with supported Qt version please add the correct “Affects versions” label. Otherwise it will be closed. Note that the bugs can be reopened later on if needed but if the bug is reopened, evidence needs to be provided that the bug is valid with supported version. “Not_in_maintenance_scope” label will be added for further search.
I must say I'm not pleased at all with this process. From the notifications I'm getting, a ton of widgets-related bugs are being closed "simply" because they're old. With QtWidgets being "done" both in Qt 5 and Qt 6, it's extremely likely that many these bugs are still completely valid. We're just shoving the dust under the carpet, open bug reports counter goes down, everybody happy?
The reasons for the lack of activity on the bugtracker are IMNSHO completely independent from the validity of the issue. They're more to be found in the general lack of upstream response to these bugs (or willingness to fix them, given again, widgets are "done"); and/or in the general huge disengagement of the community from Qt, which is now seen first and foremost as a commercial product, so why should one spend the effort to improve it (... notice how this very email thread was sent on the _wrong_ mailing list -- not the one(s) for the users of Qt; nor it was cross-posted to Qt's blog, newsletters and other announcements); and/or in the fact that the quality of web searches has plummeted in the last few years, so people hitting a bug don't even see that there is a bug report opened about their issue; and so on.
Also, it's good netiquette *not* to comment under a bug report just to say "this is still valid". We don't put undue pressure on maintainers. They are the ones supposed to check if a bug is still valid, not the other way around.
If anything, this exercise could've been a perfect use case for using an AI agent, e.g.:
* have it check if a bug has a proper description of the issue;* have it check if it has a minimal reproducer attached, or have it *create* one if missing (or minimize the existing one if not attached);
* have it build and run and see if the issue is still there;* have it create patches adding the relevant autotests into Qt proper (either passing or XFAIL); * leave comments / add labels as needed, depending on the results of the above.
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | [email protected] | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - Trusted Software Excellence
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
