inactive issues

[Thomas Tuegel]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> wrote:
> On 25-02-2015 19:21, lennart spitzner 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.
>>
>
> Well, it's a *start* at reducing the ridiculous number of outdated
> issues. Nobody is served by having huge numbers of outdated issues in an
> issue tracker. It's demotivating and the likelihood of an issue being
> fixed (or implemented, or...) decreases exponentially the longer it's
> been in a tracker... which is usually fair enough since it must mean
> that it's not *that* important after all.
>
>> I'd say the general lack of stability and the recently mentioned
>> lack of tests are the main problems of Cabal;
>> to a degree this looks like shooting at symptoms.
>
> That may certainly be the case. You should feel to contribute fixes for
> any of the existing issues -- that would help the Cabal maintainer(s)
> enormously, I suspect.

On a related note, I'm tagging issues with 'documentation' or 'easy'
as I find them. Either should be do-able for a first-time contributor.
In particular, the 'easy' issues are ones I think I could talk a
Haskell programmer through in a 1-2 paragraphs; something I think a
first-time contributor could knock out in an afternoon. Periodically,
folks ask about small projects for advanced students. I know Cabal's
not hip and exciting, or whatever, but please think of us.

-- 
Thomas Tuegel