On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 04:26:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/4/2018 9:44 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
DMD also has at least 30 PRs which have had no action from the
author in over a year. There's no reason these should be kept
open; they just take up auto-tester resources and lower the
signal to noise ratio.
If the author comes back later, they can always ask a
maintainer to reopen.
I can't agree with the "just close older bugs and PRs." There's
good stuff in them. Even if the PR is no good, it provides
insight to someone working on a better fix. Closing it means
nobody will ever be aware of it or look at it again.
Sure, by surfing through 100-s of stalled PRs among real active
work.
Somebodies archive currently is a burndown list of others. That
can’t be good and is highly frustrating.
What I’m saying is that closing PR doesn’t evaporate it. Mark as
stalled and close.
If someone is on treasure hunting, just click closed PRs and add
‘stalled’ tag to search.
Relying on the original author to revive it will not work.
Then by definition PR won’t get merged in the first place. It
takes a fair amount of motivation and busy work by author even
when all is good.
If we can’t merge it, why keep it around as OPEN?
It's similar with older bugs. They still have discussion on
them that contributes valuable information and insight to
anyone wishing to work on it. Closing them with no action means
the information is all lost.
Piling them in bugzilla has the same downside - actionable items
are intermingled with some “archived” and largely irrelevant
non-actionable stuff. Bugzilla is though a lost case, so I will
not suggest to move anything there.
