On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 00:13:23 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 22.02.2016 23:56, Andre wrote:
I was wondering how people in this D community think about the
number of
issues with NEW status...
It could scare individuals/organizations to start with D, when
they get
the impression that there are a large and growing number of
issues that
are open (for years). I know this is not a fair interpretation
of what's
going on, but it's a conclusion one could make.
I guess my reopening of issue 4763 [1] got you here. Old issues
may be embarrassing, but I believe closing them without proper
resolution, just because they're old, is very bad practice.
Regarding old enhancement request that never got anywhere, it's
certainly tempting to just throw them away, but I think it's a
bad move when a single member of the community just closes
issues that have been filed by someone else. That would make
for bad weather in the community.
Instead, I suggest to engage in discussion with the
proponent(s) of the request. Or implement the request and try
to get it merged.
- Is there a preferred way to clean things up?
Fix stuff :P
A resolution status?
Not sure what kind of status you're looking for. There's
WONTFIX, but you shouldn't apply it just because an issue is
old. As far as I know, we don't use LATER and REMIND.
A maximum time?
No.
- Or perhaps the bugtracker (https://dlang.org/bugstats.php)
needs to be
adjusted for irrelevant things..
What do you mean by "irrelevant"? If you think an issue is
irrelevant, please argue your point in the comments section of
the issue.
Maybe all enhancement requests (that are not closely followed
by an implementation) are "irrelevant"? I could understand that
viewpoint, but that's not how we operate at the moment. If you
want us to go in that direction, ask about it in the General
group, and if there's consensus to do away with (long-lived)
enhancement requests, mass-close them.
By the way, I don't like the bugstats.php page all that much.
Some time ago I've played around with charts and put this
together:
https://issues.dlang.org/chart.cgi?category=D&datefrom=&dateto=&label0=normal%20bugs&label1=enhancement%20requests&label2=major%20bugs&label3=minor%20bugs&label4=critical%20bugs&label5=blockers&label6=trivial%20bugs&label7=regressions&line0=101&line1=104&line2=100&line3=102&line4=99&line5=98&line6=103&line7=97&name=98&subcategory=data%20sets%20by%20severity&action=wrap&width=600&height=650
I think it's more interesting than the one on bugstats.php. But
it doesn't go back as far - it only started counting when I
created it. Then I gave up.
- Or is it a non-issue and should we just ignore the tail of
the list?
Not ignore it, work towards reducing it by actually resolving
stuff.
[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
Judging from the quick response(s) to #4763 and this question I
get the impression this is an active, positive and thoughtful
community. Compliments!
I think your 'definition' of irrelevant is getting us somewhere:
- enhancement requests
- that are not closely followed by an implementation
- with outdated information
- empty CC
- no votes
- no owner
I agree with your point that a single member should not close
something just because it's old. On the other hand, the issuer
also has a responsibility to track/coordinate/complete issues.
In case of #4763 I closed it because 2 out of 3 enhancement
requests were fixed/solved and the 3rd was open for about 5
years, without recent activity, no owner, empty CC and no votes.
Instead, I suggest to engage in discussion with the
proponent(s) of the request.
Point taken, I could have asked the proponent.
Or implement the request and try to get it merged.
I agree with all people responding, resolving is the best way to
go.
About the >bug<stats chart, I think it would be more meaningful
if it only shows bugs. For marketing and to challenge everyone to
keep it near zero.
Thanks for everyone's insights.
