Thomas Tuegel <ttue...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Tuegel <ttue...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:21 PM, lennart spitzner >> <l...@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 [1] 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.. -- regards, Косырев Серёга _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel