> > my thought was to use experimental to prepare 17.12 and also use a debian/
> > experimental branch in git to not interfere or do you need experimental to
> > prepare something too?
> I'm still doing changes (see my other email), so I'd really prefer to
> not deal with pending changes merged to another one, as it will make
> also your work more annoying.

well you won't have to merge anything from experimental - it would be only me 
merging your stuff to experimental. But if you think it will block your work - 
I'll wait till you say me, that's it is save to start.

> > > c) possibly triage old bugs
> > 
> > I'm quite bad in triage bugs and keep the overview as we already have
> > multiple hundreads of bugs inside kdepim. Does someone has any thoughts,
> > how we may manage to triage those?
> - go source by source
> - start with forwarded bugs with fixed-upstream tag: check what is the
>   upstream status, figure out when they were closed, why, in which
>   actual Debian source is the fix (in case reassign), and close properly

Okay that is really one thing where we can see easily progress - but still 
many of the bugs will be closed by upstream with "RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED" - how 
we translate this to Debian?

what to do if upstream, don't tell the version, where they fixed the bug?

> - check the non-forwarded bugs: see whether they are reproducible with
>   the versions in unstable, check whether there is an upstream bug about
>   them (in case set as forwarded URL), possibly forward upstream, etc

> > Maybe we have to be realistitic and say everything
> > older than 4 years we will close and tell the authos, that we have too
> > less
> > manpower to handle the bugs?
> IMHO being realistic about the fact that there is not enough manpower
> is one thing, while closing bugs outright without even looking at them
> is another thing, which does not give us a good impression by the users
> ("I reported a bug, and they closed it without even reading it").

Yes it won't be not the best impression for users. But I also think, that 
having bugs open for several years is already a bad reputation. I see the 
issue, that we haven't managed it for years to take care of all those bugs. 
Also upstream closed all older bugs without looking at them ("RESOLVED 
To make it clear I'm not happy to advice closing bugs without looking at them. 
But I don't see, that we have the manpower to look though all bugs and find 
corresponding bugs upstream. At least if I really try to find a corresponding 
bug upstream that will take at least 15min per bug. 
Maybe skip this discussion for now and talk again after we closed the low 
hanging fruits of forwarded bugs. There I can see, that with a little bit of 
scripting, I can close a lot of already fixed bugs. And maybe afterwards the 
list of open bugs, doesn't look that scary anymore :D


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply via email to