On 19 January 2018 at 07:32, Sandro Knauß <he...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hey,
>> Because they are still valid bugs in Debian. As long as those buggy
>> versions are present in the archive they are valid bugs.
>> Or at least that's what I understand from the text. If the bugs are not
>> really in the archive then it's really ok to close them.
> Well the versions for that they are reported are at least oldstable or even
> older.

Then it must be kept at least marked as valid on those releases as log
as they are part of the archive.

> If they are still valid bugs for stable or newer we don't know, if we
> do not check them bug by bug.

If they are closed upstream then close them with the following
upstream release version.

Example: if the bug has been present in (let's say) 3.4.5 and closed
by upstream because 4.0.0 is a new source base then close it with
version 4.0.0. Then The bug will still be valid for that version.

If the bug is still there then it can be either reopened or a new bug filed.

> On the other side, the code of the kdepim
> changed a lot, so many of them may be fixed. This is the reason why upstream
> closed them. Can you please tell me how important this issue is for you? Do
> you think, I should reopen the bugs?

It is important to our users. If you are using a very old version
still present in the archive then you want the bug to be opened as
long as that version exists.

And no, do not reopen them unless someone complains, and in that case
do it in a per-bug basis.

> We also have a bug bunch of bugs, that were not forwarded and are marked for
> versions < 15.08. The question raises, how we handle those. As they were not
> forwarded and not touched for years, but closing those feels wrong. So you
> think sending a slightly different text and making them as wontfix+needsinfo
> would be a good idea?

Exactly as I said above: close them with version 15.08. The BTS will
handle that perfectly.

> Any ideas, if and how we can bulk process some of those bugs, to have a
> shorter list of open bugs, we can than look in more detail... Is there a
> better tool than the browser to view/process bugs?

I think the above is enough.

Of course feel free to ask for more info if needed, and sorry for
replying too late, I'm quite complicated with accesing a machine

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer


Reply via email to