I would agree. The benefit of keeping history is probably hurting us to welcome new contributors. And even worse, a lot of issues only have titles if I recall last time I looked at this problem, so maybe just the reporter remembers (?) if this is still accurate and what it means. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Thomas Andraschko < andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Richard Zowalla <rich...@zowalla.com> schrieb am Mi., 26. Apr. 2023, > 11:26: > > > Hi all, > > > > We have a huge mess of open issues, which are very old and are > > targeting 1.7.x, 7.0.x or 7.1.x. > > > > Some of these issues are already fixed (reporter didn't respond, issue > > was never closed), had no activity for years now (ie. was a config > > issue by the user, no response to questions) or are badly written, so > > they cannot be reproduced anyway. > > > > I think, that this mess hinders new contributors in finding adequate > > tasks as it is totally unclear, which of these issues are worth to be > > worked on. > > > > Given that we eol'ed 1.7.x, 7.0.x and 7.1.x, we can (imho) close most > > of the related issues. With our limited resources, it is impossible to > > test, if these issues are still encountered in 8.0.x, 9.x or 10.x > > > > I would like to propose to clean up our Jira, ie close most of these > > orphaned / stale issues as "won't fix" because of "no activity" or > > "eol'ed" target versions. Closing the issues won't affect the > > searchability nor do we loose information. It just provide some more > > clarity for the actual tasks we are working on. > > > > If a reporter is still interested or a issue still bothers him/her, the > > issue can re-opened and correctly updated with a (still supported) > > target version. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > >
