Am Freitag, dem 19.03.2021 um 23:58 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > Le 17/03/2021 à 20:10, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > > > Hi all, > > > > there are currently 1066 open issues at LilyPond's GitLab repository: > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues > > > > I'd like to reduce this number: In the short term, I propose to close > > issues with ~Patch::abandoned (69 open issues) and ~Patch::needs_work > > (73 open issues) labels that come from patch tracking with SourceForge. > > They will stay around (including their links to Rietveld, as long as it > > stays alive), but not artificially increase the number of "issues". > > The caveat is that I remember some real problem reports with proposed > > patches, that were abandoned during review. I'll keep those issues open > > because they might need fixing either way. > > > > Any objections to this plan? > Agreed, I think it makes no sense to keep these issues > open. I would guess that in nearly all cases, it's > better to start fresh patches. If you're willing to > put in the effort to start new issues when the old > patch-tracking ones indicate a bug, I'm all for it.
No, that's exactly *not* the plan: Bug reports should remain open because the context is important. I see no point in closing existing reports just to open a new one without the history (and I've advocated against this practice in the past). I had hoped this to be clear ("keep [...] open"), but let me give some examples: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5494 can be closed as it was a contribution picked up from the mailing list (see https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2019-03/msg00021.html ) where the review comments were not addressed. On the other hand, I'm certainly not going to close the famous https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/34 For both of them, I'll leave the ~Patch::abandoned label because that provides information and an easy way to find such issues later on (even if closed). Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part