There's an idiot mass-closing old unfixed bugs

[Teo Tei]

By the way, I wish you had a code of conduct about handling bugs in a
way that is not harmful to the goal of fixing them.

2016-04-16 18:23 GMT+02:00 Teo Tei <teo8976 at gmail.com>:
>> 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.