_deepfire at feelingofgreen.ru
Tue Apr 21 18:37:35 UTC 2015
Thomas Tuegel <ttuegel at gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Tuegel <ttuegel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:21 PM, lennart spitzner
>> <lsp at informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
>>> I am not convinced. how does closing ~40 out of ~700 open tickets make
>>> the contributors more effective? that demand exceeds resources is
>>> true, but it is no argument for closing issues. many of the issues
>>> represent sensible ideas for features that do not need new feedback.
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just wanted to point out an
> exchange on Twitter  which _proves_ that having a large number of
> open tickets discourages our users from opening new issues when they
> encounter bugs, even severe performance regressions.
> I recommend, if you think there is any reason to believe an issue is
> inactive, close it! We can always re-open issues if the re-occur.
As a bystander and purely philosophically, the action of "closing" feels
gratuitiously non-injective, since it conflates "inactivity" with "completion".
Could it be that we could have a more discerning tracker, which would
show the "not inactive" subset of "open" issues by default?
Hardly so, with github, and yet..
More information about the cabal-devel