3 ms·

Here's something I don't understand: if you're already tagging the issues you'll work on, why go through the effort of closing the others? Can't you just filter

by Vinnl 5y ago

Here's something I don't understand: if you're already tagging the issues you'll work on, why go through the effort of closing the others? Can't you just filter by that tag to effectively "close" the non-tagged ones?

darknavi 5y ago
Not OP but curating a large backlog of items is a lot of work they smaller projects might not find worth it. I am not surprised many projects chose to automatically close inactive items. It's the epitome of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
- Vinnl 5y ago
  Generally the amount of work should be equal, especially when, as in OPs case, the curation is already happening. But even when not already curating, what is effectively a simple rename could already prevent a lot of complaints: rather than automatically closing stale issues, you could either just have them tagged "Stale" and filter those out of your own view (if you prefer passively dealing with stale issues), or automatically tag all new issues as "Untriaged" and remove that tag if you want them to show up in your view (if you want more active curation).
laurent123456 5y ago
But what would be the value in leaving hundreds of open reports and nobody looking after them? Or do you mean some good bug reports are going to be missed because of this? Because in general if an issue is even moderately important, we'll hear about it via multiple channels - the issue tracker, the forum, Discord, etc. so we'll eventually be aware of it and there will be a proper bug report on the issue tracker. Either we'll select a good one among the duplicates, or we'll create one.
- Vinnl 5y ago
  The "value" would be that nobody would be complaining about issues getting closed. Of course, that's just a small upside, but since I don't see any downside with it, I'm still wondering why one wouldn't do that.
- mook 5y ago
  The value would be in somebody else encountering the problem — they don't need to open a new issue (that will eventually get closed due to being stale later). Net effect is that you get less mail.

by Vinnl 5y ago

darknavi 5y ago

Not OP but curating a large backlog of items is a lot of work they smaller projects might not find worth it. I am not surprised many projects chose to automatically close inactive items. It's the epitome of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".

Vinnl 5y ago
Generally the amount of work should be equal, especially when, as in OPs case, the curation is already happening. But even when not already curating, what is effectively a simple rename could already prevent a lot of complaints: rather than automatically closing stale issues, you could either just have them tagged "Stale" and filter those out of your own view (if you prefer passively dealing with stale issues), or automatically tag all new issues as "Untriaged" and remove that tag if you want them to show up in your view (if you want more active curation).

laurent123456 5y ago

But what would be the value in leaving hundreds of open reports and nobody looking after them? Or do you mean some good bug reports are going to be missed because of this? Because in general if an issue is even moderately important, we'll hear about it via multiple channels - the issue tracker, the forum, Discord, etc. so we'll eventually be aware of it and there will be a proper bug report on the issue tracker. Either we'll select a good one among the duplicates, or we'll create one.

Vinnl 5y ago
The "value" would be that nobody would be complaining about issues getting closed. Of course, that's just a small upside, but since I don't see any downside with it, I'm still wondering why one wouldn't do that.
mook 5y ago
The value would be in somebody else encountering the problem — they don't need to open a new issue (that will eventually get closed due to being stale later). Net effect is that you get less mail.