1 Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes, but 180 days. 4 5 years Regards
Rüdiger On 5/6/26 6:32 PM, Bowen, Rich wrote: > After some chat on Slack, I wanted to have a poll here on the idea of closing > “old” tickets, for various definitions of old. The Slack conversation was in > favor, but as that is a small subset of the entire project, I’m hoping to get > a broader consensus here. There are several questions: > > > 1) Do you want to auto-close tickets that are filed against 2.0? (Data: > There’s only 19 of them. The newest of these is from 2009. > https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-20x-open-bugs.html) > > [ ] Yes, close 2.0 tickets > [ ] No, don’t > > 2) Do you want to auto-close tickets that are files against 2.2? (Data: > There’s 59 of them. The newest is from 2014. > https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-22x-open-bugs.html) > > [ ] Yes, close 2.2 tickets > [ ] No, don’t. > > 3) Do you want to auto-close tickets that are marked NEEDINFO but have > received no response in a long time? (Data: There’s 89 tickets which are > NEEDINFO and have been unanswered for 90+ days, and obviously this number > changes depending on what timeframe you pick. > https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-needinfo-stale.html) > > [ ] Yes, close NEEDINFO after 90 days > [ ] Yes, close NEEDINFO after a while, but a different length of time > [ ] NO, don’t. > > 4) Do you want to auto-close tickets that have been open with no discussion > for ages? (Data: Varies depending on what you consider old, but 69% of > tickets haven’t been touched in more than 5 years. > https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-needinfo-stale.html) > > [ ] Close tickets that have been abandoned for 10 years > [ ] … 5 years > [ ] … 2 years > [ ] Some other time period > [ ] Don’t ever auto-close anything. > > > In each case, a close message would encourage the reporter to reopen, or open > a new ticket, against a current release, if the problem still exists. > > The goal here is to make our ticket backlog less daunting, and more appealing > to contributors who want to pick meaningful stuff to work on. > > >
