Re: Deprecating Bug-Buddy versions before 2.16.0

Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006, à 11:10, Elijah Newren a écrit :
> On 7/26/06, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > With the release of Bug-Buddy 2.16 I want to deprecate the email
> > interface used by the older Bug-Buddy versions. It will still be
> > supported for at least a year after bug-buddy has been released. After
> > that the official support will be over.
> > In practice this means that I will not add the email interface Bug-Buddy
> > support to the first after around Sep 2007. So it
> > could be that the support goes on until 2010. Or that it ends on 10 Sep
> > 2007.
> >
> > I can probably guess people will complain about this. Already know one
> > non-Bug-Buddy app using the email interface. I only learned about this
> > afterwards and IMO it is not my problem. Never ever considered the email
> > interface as something stable.
> Not only was it unstable, it also didn't work, though you made a
> marvellous effort to make it not suck nearly so bad.  Given that it's
> been an unending source of headaches and people's bug reports getting
> rejected (for no reason other than 'our parser sucks' or perhaps 'your
> email client sucks for sending html'), I'm in favor.  Bugs from
> versions of software over a year old tend to not be so useful anyway.
> > Of course, if there is a person really wanting to have the interface
> > staying alive, then I'll gladly make them maintainer of the existing
> > interface when 2.16.0 is out.
> >
> > As Bug-Buddy is the cause of many filed crasher bugs, I need some sort
> > of agreement from release team that it is ok not to receive from GNOME
> > 2.14.x versions (and before) when 2.20.0 is released.
> Personally, I'd really like to see some kind of more general mechanism
> for automatically rejecting bug reports against versions of software
> over a year old; which is only a one-time side effect of this change.
> I guess you're asking though because other people might be using that
> email interface besides bug-buddy, which I agree shouldn't have been
> considered a stable interface.  So...
> +2.  (since 1 is equal to 2 for large values of 1)

Looks okay to me too.


Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]