3 ms·
I understand closing PRs if they're complicated and out of scope, but closing issues doesn't make sense. These bugs don't go away just because the primary devel
by Redoubts 10y ago
I understand closing PRs if they're complicated and out of scope, but closing issues doesn't make sense. These bugs don't go away just because the primary developers are leaving.
- lamontcg 10y agoClosed issues don't go away. Lots of bugs are edge conditions that not enough people care about for the developers to ever pay any attention to fixing. They fall under the category of "sure, and if you submit a PR, we'll merge it". I imagine there's also issues for architectural problems with 1.x which will never, ever get fixed because nobody will be willing to spent the time massively refactoring the codebase. From a developer perspective its pointless to keep those open. How you feel about this probably depends on if you're a user or developer. If you're a developer you view the issue tracker as a TODO list. If you're literally never going to bother fixing an issue, its best to just close it and move on. Users seem to view issue trackers as defect trackers and believe that bugs should stay open until they're fixed.
- lamontcg 10y agoRelevant link that just popped up on HN 24 hours later: https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/the-art-of-closing/ https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/the-art-of-closing/ If active project are always supposed to be closing, then deprecated 1.x branches of projects should have an even higher bar for anything they keep around open.