I think it's actually a problem with issue trackers, which have only this binary open/closed status, where the only way to express "outdated" is with a label or

I think it's actually a problem with issue trackers, which have only this binary open/closed status, where the only way to express "outdated" is with a label or something. As a project maintainer, I don't want to close unfixed issues because they become much harder to find (hidden by default), which results in duplicate reports if it turns out the issue is not fixed. Also it can be rude, if it was a high effort bug report. At the same time, I don't want to leave open years-old issues about a part of the program which has been heavily modified, because they are likely outdated, and low priority to begin with. The best compromise for the moment seems to be leaving them open, tagging them as outdated or someday/maybe, and filtering out those tags. This is far from ideal, because the filter isn't sticky, so you either have to bookmark it or continually re-apply it. But it would be really nice if bug trackers created three visual bins to dump things into, where the middle bin is this nebulous "stuff" that's not quite groomed well enough to be actionable but also not finished enough to be closed. (Note: also, "closed" should be subdivided into "implemented" and "rejected" with different visual statuses, like Merge Requests often are distinctly coloured by merged vs closed -- but this is not a separate bin).