[Development] Error database cleaning continues

[Giuseppe D'Angelo]

Hi,

Il 08/10/26 12:02, Jouni Äijälä ha scritto:
> I agree, old bugs should not be closed just because they are old. At the 
> same time we should avoid this kind of situation that we have thousands 
> of over 10 years open bugs which most likely never be fixed. 

Why not? What's the harm at keeping them open?
I think this is the fundamental question that hasn't been answered.



> Reason why 
> we are not using "need more info" yet is that by doing this we would 
> kind of ask people to retest every bug and this is not what we want.

*The Qt project* ought to retest them. The reporter has already done 
their job.


> We 
> will use "need more info" later on once we get closer to supported Qt 
> versions.  So by default closing the bugs now with "won't do" does not 
> mean that they are not valid bugs. 

Now we're arguing the semantics of the issue resolutions on Jira.

What does "not in scope" mean? What does "won't do" mean?

More importantly why hasn't this been discussed *before* acting, then 
the discussion summarized on the wiki, and the bugs updated with links 
to the wiki? We could've also had a session at QtCS.


> We kind of accept quality debt and 
> then who disagrees that can update the bugs with supported Qt version 
> and they will remain open. 

Who's who?

The original reporter, who hasn't seen the bug acted upon in years, and 
now sees the bug being closed? Would they still care?

Someone else stumbling on the same report? As I wrote, I completely 
disagree that this someone else actually exists, because our bugs are no 
longer easy to find on web searches.

(This is the wrong thread to complain about the current state of the 
web, but it's still a fact -- I'm not necessarily pointing fingers 
against Jira Cloud here.)



> Also the same for already closed bugs by 
> reopening them.  

Certainly not; it depends on the resolution. One thing is reopening a 
"needs more info" bug, by providing the missing info. One thing is 
reopening a bug that has been rejected as "invalid" (one needs to bring 
a positive proof that it's, in fact, a valid bug; that's more effort).

And yet another thing is a "Won't do", which is effectively trying to 
override a maintainer decision (or the project's decision), for which 
the bar is even higher.


> These particular bugs have now better chance to get 
> fixed. 

Why?



> Also we are not deleting the bugs from database. They can still 
> be found by the label "not in maintenance scope" even if they are closed.

Nobody cares about the label.


My 2 c,
-- 
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - Trusted Software Excellence
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4889 bytes
Desc: Firma crittografica S/MIME
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20261008/daf8949c/attachment.bin>