Roman - I don't believe a compromise is required here and I am strongly in favor of Gian's approach.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:07 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The effect should be giving us an > > open issues list that more accurately respects the issues that people in > > the community feel are important. > > > > The list would still be too long to be comprehensible or digestible for > anybody, nor that anyone is expected to go through the full list at any > time. > > I see the value of nudging PR authors to push their work through rather > than abandon PRs in pursuit of something new, hoping to return to the older > PRs later (which will likely never happen) - that is, to avoid this > psychological fallacy. > > But I don't see the same value for issues. Personally, I open many issues > which I don't really plan to work on in any foreseeable future, just to > record my ideas and thoughts so that they can be discovered by other > developers (and myself) later, and referenced to from future discussions, > issues, and PRs. I see a real practical value in it, as I routinely link to > my own old issues (and re-read them, refreshing my old thoughts on the > topic) in Druid development. I don't want to take on a burden of regularly > repel the stalebot from all of these issues. > > > > As more and more work piles up, it becomes paralyzing. > > > What I suggest is to embrace the fact that open issues list will grow as > long as the project exists and don't be paralyzed. Why would a number in a > circle in Github interface paralyze anybody from doing work, anyway? > > > > Just making decisions about what work should and shouldn't get > > done can exhaust all available resources. > > > This statement doesn't make sense to me as well as the previous one. I > actually agree that priorities and focus is an important issue for a > project like Druid where there are a lot of directions in which it can be > improved and it's hard to choose (predict) the direction with the highest > ROI. But I don't see how going down from 1000 to 100 open issues would help > with this challenge at all. > > As a compromise approach, I suggest to auto-tag issues as "Shelved", > although, personally, I don't see the point in that either, but if other > people want to see if there is any recent activity on the issue, it might > be helpful. >
