Re: random thought about bug-buddy (in the 'very long term thinking' category)

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 13:44, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:54:07PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> > So, this has a /bit/ to do with 1.4 support and such, but also just with
> > long-term planning. Would anyone object if future versions of bug-buddy
> > 'expired' a year after being built? Like, run the binary, it checks the
> > date, if date is greater than one year after being built, it refuses to
> > run.
> 
> I think that's a very bad idea. I know that it is embarassing to get
> reports about ancient versions, but that can't be helped by obsoleting
> bug-buddy.

It's not a question of 'embarassing', it's a question of literally
scores of wasted volunteer hours.

> And why should I be forced to (possibly manually) upgrade
> bug-buddy, just because my distribution is last year's, even if bug-buddy
> is otherwise working flawlessly?

Because your bug-reports are not useful because you're running ancient
software?

> Maybe a warning dialog (with a "don't show me anymore" button) would be
> better.

Yes, quite possibly.

Luis