> One day I closed an issue because nobody cared for months (even I didn't care enough even though I reported it). Someone reopened it saying that a lack of care was not a reason to close an issue and someone else fixed the issue the same day. So, closing can even encourage fixing :-).
Which is exactly my point. 14 days is long enough for people to chime in, and if it gets closed all the interested parties get a reminder to reopen it if they still care. Autoclose is not the same as close. We could run this tool first with a 1-year timeout, then one week later 6 months etc until we get to 14 days, so that people are not overwhelmed by all the close notices. On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:20 PM Tomasz Czyż <tomasz.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes - just adding as reference :-) > > > 2016-07-22 12:07 GMT+01:00 zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com>: > >> Exactly, we need to organize ourselves better. For me 1k+ open issues is >> also a bad signal when I consider adopting a project. Closing them all is >> not going to actually fix these issues, what we need is more helping hands! >> >> Here are a couple of aspects that I think are part of the problem: >> >> Github issues doesn't let us forward packaging issues to the package >> maintainer which is the best person to fix these issues. Some might be easy >> fixed that just didn't reach the right audience. I tried subscribing to the >> repo but there is way too much volume for me to handle. >> >> Another similar issue is that the submitting person can't set flags on >> the new issue he's creating. We have to rely on a core contributor for >> doing that work instead, which is a waste of resource. >> >> Right now participation is really random and it's nice to keep this >> freedom but would anyone else be willing to setup a rota? If we can be more >> consistent on the response times I think it would be beneficial. >> >> What's our process to make sure issues don't fall trough the cracks? Just >> writing a playbook on how to become the "ideal" maintainer would be helpful >> I think. >> >> Hmm that's it for now ^_^ >> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 at 11:04 Domen Kožar <do...@dev.si> wrote: >> >>> The real question is how to organize so that we triage all incoming >>> issues. Closing them is the easy part :) >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Wout Mertens <wout.mert...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We could tag those issues with "mayor-unsolved-issue" and search for >>>> them that way. Unsolvable issues are just standing in the way of solvable >>>> ones, making it harder to keep the project up-to-date. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:49 AM Roger Qiu <roger....@matrix.ai> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What about things that aren't necessarily small fixable bugs. Some >>>>> projects have long discussions about design or philosophy or some major >>>>> architecting. Or a bug that is pending somebody coming up with a good >>>>> solution (like for example ZFS's encryption issue which was open for >>>>> years). Will people need to constantly comment with `+1` just to reopen? >>>>> Also if an issue is closed it may increase the number of duplicate issues, >>>>> instead of adding onto the closed issue. >>>>> >>>>> On 22/07/2016 7:37 PM, Wout Mertens wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's the thing about auto-reopening, it makes sure that people >>>>> interested in seeing the issue fixed are reminded of the issue so they can >>>>> continue fixing it, as well as automatically weeding out the issues that >>>>> are no longer important. >>>>> >>>>> All the *real* issues will stay active, since people will reopen them. >>>>> All the rest will be available in the history. >>>>> >>>>> I think 14 days is enough time between reminders for an open source >>>>> project. Shorter is annoying since we can't work on open source every day, >>>>> and longer will just lead to more stale issues. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:17 AM Oliver Charles <ol...@ocharles.org.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if the problem is you think old issues are skewing the >>>>>> results/making it hard to find the signal, then can't you just use more >>>>>> intelligent search filters? E.g., things created in the past 3 months. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM Eelco Dolstra < >>>>>> eelco.dols...@logicblox.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/22/2016 09:06 AM, Wout Mertens wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > We have 1238 open issues and 286 open PRs. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > That is just too much to reason about. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > How about using something like https://github.com/twbs/no-carrier >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> > auto-closes after 14 days of inactivity, and reopens on a new >>>>>>> comment? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is something to be said for auto-closing issues after a long >>>>>>> time (e.g. >>>>>>> Fedora auto-closes inactive issues from CURRENT-2 releases ago), but >>>>>>> 14 days is >>>>>>> waaaay to short. Bugs don't disappear after 14 days... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Eelco Dolstra | LogicBlox, Inc. | http://nixos.org/~eelco/ >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> nix-dev mailing list >>>>>>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>>>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nix-dev mailing list >>>>>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nix-dev mailing >>>>> listnix-...@lists.science.uu.nlhttp://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Founder of Matrix AIhttps://matrix.ai/+61420925975 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nix-dev mailing list >>>>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nix-dev mailing list >>>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nix-dev mailing list >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > > > -- > Tomasz Czyż >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev