On 11 April 2018 at 16:18, Joshua Root wrote:
> Certainly let's encourage contributors who have something to submit to
> use PRs. But I don't know that simply moving existing tickets over to
> PRs without the involvement of the original contributor will be useful.

In any case I don't think that just transfering the commit without:
- making sure that lint passes
- making sure that livecheck passes and reports no newer version
- making sure that the port builds on at least one OS version and that
it at least runs
makes much sense. It doesn't have to be the original author who does that.

> Most of the open submission tickets have problems that need to be
> addressed before they are committed.

In many cases there was just lack of feedback from committers, even if
some issues were addressed.

> And yes, if a submission has been reviewed and changes have been
> requested, and the contributor has not responded after a reasonable
> amount of time, and nobody else has volunteered to fix it, the ticket
> can be closed.

We could move them to something like "changesneeded" (not sure where
exactly; they could get a special status, even if closed, but it
should be easy enough to find them should anyone have motivation to
fix the remaining issues). Just because none of us took the time to
review the changes for long enough that all dependency and the
software itself became completely outdated in the meantime, doesn't
mean that we should make the submissions non-discoverable and give the
signal to users that first of all we don't care for 5 years, and when
we start caring, we boldly close all the tickets.

Very often I see tickets getting status "upstream", "infoneeded" etc.
which basically means that developers would ignore such tickets until
something happens. Or perhaps "helpneeded" which means that they are
genuinely interested in fixing the issue, but have no resources to fix
it. We need something similar.


Reply via email to