[top postet]
I agree with all of the reasons and could add even more.
Measuring the take-care of issues automatically would need a
standardization of best practices, e.g.:
- before: need more info, not reproducable, not a bug, wishlist, new feature
- severity: critical, important, normal, minor, cosmetic
- prioritity: asap, release +x, future major release, won't solve
A maintainer should react and take decisions in reasonable time.
2015-12-24 11:33 GMT+01:00 Sawyer X <xsawy...@gmail.com>:
> [top-posted]
>
> Further context as someone maintaining distributions with long-running
> issues. There are many reasons an issue could stay open for a long time:
>
> * It requires much more consideration (and could relate to multiple
> branches of reference implementation or different steps along the way)
> * It's a reminder of a very low-priority issue.
> * It's a reminder to rethink a topic.
> * It's a low-hanging fruit kept so early contributors could pick it up.
> ("Up for grabs" issue tag, for instance.)
> * It's kept until another issue is resolved.
> * It's kept for a while until the original person who opened it will
> confirm it was resolved or still exists.
> * Someone asked to handle it and they're given their time to do so
> (depending on complexity and prioritization).
> * Some PRs need - as I describe it - time to ripen. I believe whoever
> dealt with that knows what I mean.
>
> It's very hard to judge by issues. Perhaps comments on issues? I believe
> issues should at least be commented on (and I'm a terrible offender at
> this).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Douglas Bell <preact...@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Number (and age if possible) of open tickets might show if someone's
>> paying attention to the dist. Like David said, much like the adoption
>> criteria. The issues don't have to be valid, they could even be spam for
>> all it matters, as long as someone's taking care of them.
>> >
>> > This is a tricky issue, as I found when trying to tune the adoption
>> criteria. There are plenty of big name dists that have a lot of open
>> issues, and always do.
>> >
>> > My current thought on this is that if no issues are getting dealt with
>> in some timeframe, then it fails the metric. Even if a dist has a pile of
>> open issues, if at least some issues are getting dealt with, then as you
>> show, that indicates some level of maintainer engagement. That still has
>> failure modes though: someone might have adopted a dist that they’re really
>> not up to maintaining, so they avoid the large / scary / critical issues.
>>
>> Yes, absolute ticket count is not as good as ticket movement or churn,
>> even if a release doesn't necessarily result. A clean river is a
>> steady-flowing river.
>
>
>
