Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

[Joshua Root]

On 2016-10-9 06:10 , Marcel Bischoff wrote:
> On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff <marcel at herrbischoff.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

For something like a port submission that has never reached a working 
state, it might be reasonable to close the ticket with a resolution that 
indicates that work stalled and appears unlikely to resume. Or if 
there's a report of a bug that we can't reproduce, and we've asked the 
reporter for more info, and that info has not been provided, then that 
would be reasonable to close as well ("worksforme"). And certainly if a 
bug is no longer applicable, that's synonymous with "fixed".

But the idea that a valid, unfixed ticket can be "too old" makes no 
sense to me. Closing such a ticket without doing anything to resolve it 
doesn't mean you're actually more productive or responsive or whatever. 
(No doubt it makes certain stats look good.)

- Josh