3 ms·
> After 30 days of inactivity, issues are closed with a timeout label. If there hasn’t been any activity for that long, it is unlikely that leaving the ticket o
by shrx 6y ago
> After 30 days of inactivity, issues are closed with a timeout label. If there hasn’t been any activity for that long, it is unlikely that leaving the ticket open is going to change anything. Maybe it was a feature request that no one is interested in implementing. Maybe the reporter was asked for details but is never going to provide them. Maybe nobody knows how to answer the question or what it even means.
I don't agree with this part. An issue should stay open _until it is resolved_. A timeout is not a resolution. It is extremely disappointing from the issue author's perspective to see their issue closed without any feedback from the developer. The developer should either provide a solution, or manually close the issue with a specified reason, e.g. "wontfix", so at least the issue author knows what to expect.
- Epskampie 6y agoThe article explains exactly about how a growing list of issues, with every ticket needing time and effort to figure out is bad for their mental health. Then your response is: "no, every ticket should stay open until it gets a response"? That is the exact mindset that drove the original author to tears.
- b3kart 6y agoDoesn’t sound like a bad way to weed out less important work. If an inactive issue is closed an nobody cares: good, that’s the intention. If someone does care enough to re-open/open a new issue: no harm done, and maintainers have clear signal that someone still cares.
- bla3 6y agoFor personal spare time projects, the only way it won't spiral into what's described at the top of this post is if the burden for making an issue useful is on the reporter, not the author. There's one author and millions of possible users.