Dirk Stöcker wrote: > a) a "needinfo" state, which is very helpful to mark these tickets, which > requires additional info. This is very helpful to find and close all these > tickets, where additional info is required, but never gets provided (For > JOSM we use that together with a resolved state needinfo, which is used > after some weeks).
We use the "needinfo" keyword for that, but it's true that a "needinfo" state would technically be more correct. > Many of these are actually right, but most aren't worth the effort to fix > them immediately or at all. But closing them would also be wrong. So > depending on the fact how you handle tickets it must not be bad, that you > accumulate them. As long as you at least care for these which are > important (these, where there are requests of state, additional info - > these where there is activity). Keeping tickets open that we are very unlikely to ever fix sends the wrong message, and leads to comments like "What, this extremely important bug is still not fixed after five years? WTF!" as we see them here from time to time (fortunately not too often). We could close them as "value-to-work-ratio-too-low-sorry" to make that clear, but then we would have people re-open them with a comment like "This can't be right, this extremely important bug must absolutely be fixed!", so I'm not sure we would gain anything. -- Remy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
