Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

[Marcel Bischoff]

On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff <marcel at herrbischoff.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could
>>>>> be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports.
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree - but I'd close everything over six months old or something like that for optics. People can still search to "closed" tickets if they want.
>>>
>>> It seems counterproductive to me to close a ticket if you're not addressing the issue. Just because nobody has done anything with a ticket for 6 months or 2 years or whatever period of time doesn't necessarily mean that the issue is no longer valid, just that nobody has had time to deal with it yet.
>>>
>>> When I go searching for tickets, I don't typically search for closed
>>> tickets, because I assume that closed tickets are closed because
>>> they've been dealt with. If we change that rule now, it will mean that
>>> I either don't find tickets that might have been relevant to whatever
>>> I'm searching for, or that I have to remember to search for closed
>>> tickets and spend a lot of time sifting through tickets that have
>>> already been dealt with.
>>
>> I see where you're coming from. However, your approach is contrary to
>> how the majority of issues are handled on services like GitHub. If the
>> ticket is too old, stale, not applicable any more or simply does not
>> receive any answer for weeks/months, it will usually be closed with a
>> note stating that. This helps keep the number of issues/tickets down to
>> a manageable level and avoids tickets being active for 11 years.
>
>Well, we're not hosting issues on GitHub; we're hosting them on Trac. And I don't want to close tickets that have not been dealt with.

It should be easy to just tag those issues as "abandoned" and close
them, so you can comfortably find them again at any point.