There's an idiot mass-closing old unfixed bugs

[Teo Tei]

> When a report is filed against an old release and not yet fixed, but the
> report hasn't been updated with comments indicating the issue is either
> fixed or still existent in the future releases, I would mark as "Incomplete"
> with a canned comment similar to "[...]"

That sounds about right, but that's not what dino99 is doing. He is
CLOSING the issues.

> I am not going to look through all your bugs, but the typical triage
> procedure *is* to Close or Invalid or Incomplete (or Won't Fix for
> series-targeted task items) EOL-release bugs.

Well, then the typical triage procedure is wrong. And there's a big
difference between close/invalid/wontfix and incomplete.

>  Back a couple years after
> Karmic went End of Life, I went through and, with the API, mass closed at
> least 70 bugs still targeted to the Karmic release.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

> That's not the task of everyone - ideally, yes, everyone would test, but
> it's not a requirement in all cases,

Well, if they are not willing to test, then they shouldn't close the
issue. If it's not their task to test, ask someone else whose task it
is, and only after an issue is verified to be fixed or invalid, close
it.

> While that may not apply here, it still is valid to make note that you can
> always make a comment without being rude that the issue still exists, and
> ask for the bug to be reopened.

I did exactly that (except perhaps the part about not being rude, but
i was just responding to a rude behavior), and I myself re-open the
issue, and it got closed again. Now explain how that is not stupid.

>  The Code of Conduct [1] states in it two big issues of which you
> didn't do here:  Be Considerate, Be Respectful.

I am considerate and respectful to those who are considered and
respectful. Closing an issue which a person took the time to report,
without taking the time to verify whether it's fixed or not, is very
disrespectful not only to the person who reported it, but also to
everybody affected by it.


> I don't see abuse here - they're not idiotic, they're just trying to clean
> up old ancient bugs that are against EOL releases, and haven't yet been
> marked as being affecting a later release.

Well, *that* is idiotic, because by following that logic (note that it
includes closing the issue WITHOUT testing whether or not it affects a
later release), EVERY SINGLE BUG that is not fixed before the EOL will
be closed before it's fixed.


> This doesn't mean the user is an 'idiot' or being abusive.  That's your
> opinion because they're your bugs - that isn't a valid opinion overall.

They are not "my bugs", they are every user's bugs. It's funny that
the whole way you handle bugs seems to assume that the bugs somehow
concern only the person who happen to report them. That also applies
to the practice of closing a bug that remains "incomplete" (or
"needinfo" or whatever it's called) when you ask the reporter for more
information and the reporter just doesn't reply.

And regarding my opinion not being valid overall, I just argued
against that in my previous comment.