On 30 December 2017 at 15:42, Muld via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 06:55:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> It's not like we have a shortage of bugzilla issues and are wondering what >> to do next. > > > Yah there are a ton of Bugzilla issues, that's the problem. More than half > of them aren't "actionable" as you put it. >
There's nothing unmanageable about the issue tracker, nor are the number of open bugs even a reliable measure of anything. For instance, Python has more than twice as many open bugs than D. > Here's the problem, look at something like Rust: > > Pull requests? 95 open, it's about the same as Dlang, But if you go to the > last page... > > https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pulls?page=4&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen > > Look at that the oldest one is from October 15th, 20_17_. > > Now we go to DMD... > > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?page=6&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen > > Oldest one is from January 17, 20_13_. > Hey, I take offence to that. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17839 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7503 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7508 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7509 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7510 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7527 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7536 And many more closed that were even older, and I'm not the only one reviving these patches, all of which are either abandoned, incomplete, or too controversial (there is always a valid reason why open PRs were left to rot). > > In contrast this same problem exists for Bugzilla. You say it's working > cause it's better than using notepad or some other stupid shit. Bugzilla > isn't the issue, it's the fact the people maintaining it aren't willing to > commit to anything and leave issues open that shouldn't be left open. That > just results in noise making it difficult to see what actual issues are. I'm > not even talking about duplicate entries as you seem to have have > misunderstood. All open issues are actionable, and require some action. They are not noise, and many issues whose fix requires a change in language specification or semantics are understandably left to the few who have the authoritative to make such final decisions on whether it should be accepted or rejected. Age of issue is not a big deal. In fact I see it as a good sign that at least issues are left to breathe while we wait and understand the impact or urgency of it. As opposed to jumping in and fixing issues immediately without taking due diligence on the wider picture it affects.
