On Friday, July 31, 2015 07:29:53 PM Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Friday 31 July 2015 12:00:22 Allen Winter wrote: > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 04:01:37 PM Thomas Lübking wrote: > > > On Freitag, 31. Juli 2015 14:05:09 CEST, laurent Montel wrote: > > > >> Especially for KDE PIM, given the size of the userbase and the amount > > > >> of > > > >> developers (3), bugs often take more than a year to get to and > > > >> to be fixed. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > As Daniel wrote we have a lot of bug and a very small team. > > > > So we can't able to fix bug in 1 year. > > > > And I don't want to see all bugs closed after 1 year because it's useful > > > > to > > > > read all bug and sometime it takes me some months/years to fix bugs. > > > > > > Wishes: > > > ------- > > > should *never* be closed automatically - either a Human declares them > > > WONTFIX or it's "patches welcome" - they may however be resubmissioned > > > again once a year "is this actually reasonable?" so a developer can say > > > "what a bullshit of an idea" and close it ;-) > > > > > > Bugs: > > > ----- > > > should get regular (every 6 months after inactivity?) updates like "is > > > this still an issue", setting them "WAITING FOR INFO" and if not > > > responded within the next month (and reopened) be closed "WORKS FOR ME" > > > This will eg. remind developers to "oh, yes - I fixed a dupe of this 3 > > > month ago, totally forgot about this one". > > > > > > > > > Autoclosing a bug that maybe has not ever even been touched by a developer > > > is a blunt offense and teaches users to either start nagging (in fear of > > > getting their bug closed) or being frustrated (to avoid 4-letter words > > > ;-) > > > > > > Also "fixing" issues by ignoring them is really bad style. > > > > agree > > dvartil's suggestion to follow the fedora model, in combination with the > > 6month nag seems pretty good. > > I do not see the point in implementing both. I also do not see the point in > nagging the user after a certain period of time if nobody else ever cared to > comment on the bug. Feels a bit like little kids asking "Are we there yet?" > over and over again. > you're probably right.
In any event, I'm against the original proposal. > I do see the point in Daniel's proposal because the time a release goes EOL > feels like a sensible point in time for asking whether the bug still exists. > > > Regards, > Ingo