3 ms·

But they should be looked at. They aren't because we don't have infinite time every day to look at issues. If those issues are still a problem nobody will find

But they should be looked at. They aren't because we don't have infinite time every day to look at issues. If those issues are still a problem nobody will find them, they'll make new issues and lose all the previous history, unless the UI is designed to support automatically suggesting reopening an old issue instead.

jrmg 3y ago
It's not necessarily true that they 'should' be looked at. Most old projects that follow the 'never close without verification' philosophy end up, eventually, with a majority of open issues not actually reflecting the current state of the project. A middle-ground might be to leave open the issues with recent activity, with the idea being that at least the ones that are affecting people the most are not swept under the rug.
- joepie91_ 3y ago
  > Most old projects that follow the 'never close without verification' philosophy end up, eventually, with a majority of open issues not actually reflecting the current state of the project. There's a crucial question here that I find not enough people ask themselves: does that actually matter? And if yes, why? What, specifically, is the material problem caused by this situation? It often feels like people are just chasing 'inbox zero', under the assumption that "0 open issues == good", without any actual material problem being solved in the process. (Github probably isn't helping here, with their undeservedly prominent placement of the open issue count driving this sort of behaviour...)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]