Expanding on Russel's comment, the SCons project is a broad church that nominally supports a very large number of languages. I think old issues reflect the relative interest from the comminity for supporting a particular language and/or feature of SCons (e.g. people care a lot more about continued support for MSVC, less about Java). Perhaps all that's required is expectation management? The readme is already quite large, but something in there?
Andrew On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 20:01, Bill Deegan <b...@baddogconsulting.com> wrote: > O.k. > I'll try to get this setup this weekend. > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:47 AM Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> wrote: > >> On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:44 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: >> > On one hand dropping the number of open bugs will have significant >> > appearance/PR improvements. >> > (I've seen comments saying 600+ bugs outstanding the project must not be >> > still alive). >> >> I'd say having a lot of open bugs in a project that clearly has regular >> commits (as SCons does) could lead to the the thought that the SCons team >> doesn't care about submitted issues – rather than being a dead project. >> >> Age of bugs is also a dimension. Bugs open for more than a few years >> indicate >> a "no-one actually cares about this" and so are candidates for closing >> with >> the option of reopening – or better a new bug opening given the difference >> between the software now compared to then. >> >> > But dropping 620 of 680 bugs because they're stale, but possibly still >> > unresolved issues probably isn't the best. >> >> It depends. Some may just not be relevant any more. Given the rate of >> change >> of SCons code base, any bug report unaddressed in say five years should be >> closed. >> >> > Would we tag them stale and close them, allowing them to be identified >> as >> > possibly not resolved, but with no recent activity? >> >> Or delete them in the hope of getting a new bug report if the problem is >> still >> a real one. >> >> > We used to have weekly (ish) bug triage IRC meetings. >> > Though to be honest some issues never got addressed because the time >> > required to thoroughly investigate them and resolve and the few people >> > reporting them dropped their effective priority. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> I was never able to get involved in triaging since the meeting were always >> held as a time when I was in bed a sleep. >> >> -- >> Russel. >> =========================================== >> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 >> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 >> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> Scons-dev@scons.org >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > Scons-dev@scons.org > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev