2015-05-12 9:50 GMT+02:00 Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com>: > > Inactive - A feature or bug that has had no activity from users or > developers in a long time >
Why is this needed? Every JIRA listing can be sorted by activity. That gets the inactive ones out of your view quickly. I do not see any reason why an issue should be closed because of this. If it's inactive, maybe it's because it falls on some of the other categories (out of scope, later, won't fix). I can only think about a case where closing an inactive issue makes sense: * A bug was reported long time ago. Nobody was able to reproduce (after trying actively) and the reporter is no longer around to provide more info. That is a much more specific case than "Inactivity", and a lot of large scale open source projects use specific resolutions for this. On a more general note: what is the problem with open issues / pull requests? I see a tendency in the Spark project to do unusual things with issues / PRs just to maintain the numbers low. For example, closing PRs after a couple of weeks of inactivity just to shrink the queue or closing active issues just for the shake of it. Honestly, this looks a lot like trying to game metrics. But maybe there is something that I am missing. Maybe what it is actually needed is to improve the lifecycle of an issue while it is alive, instead of trying to kill it earlier. Some examples of this that are used on other projects are the "incomplete" status to signal that there is more info required from the reporter in order to take further action. Also "confirmed" to acknowledge that a bug is confirmed to be present and needs action by a developer. Best, -- Santiago M. Mola <http://www.stratio.com/> Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>*
