[Nix-dev] Too many open issues

Fri Jul 22 14:25:25 CEST 2016

> 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.czyz at gmail.com> wrote:

> https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes - just adding as reference :-)
>
>
> 2016-07-22 12:07 GMT+01:00 zimbatm <zimbatm at 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 <domen at 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.mertens at 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.qiu at 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 <ollie at 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.dolstra at 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 at lists.science.uu.nl
>>>>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nix-dev mailing list
>>>>>> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
>>>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nix-dev mailing listnix-dev at 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 at lists.science.uu.nl
>>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nix-dev mailing list
>>>> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
>>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nix-dev mailing list
>>> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nix-dev mailing list
>> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tomasz Czyż
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/attachments/20160722/362de473/attachment-0001.html>