Re: inactive issues

Thomas Tuegel writes:

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Tuegel wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:21 PM, lennart spitzner wrote:

...

I am not convinced. how does closing ~40 out of ~700 open tickets make the contributors more effective? that demand exceeds resources is true, but it is no argument for closing issues. many of the issues represent sensible ideas for features that do not need new feedback.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just wanted to point out an exchange on Twitter [1] which _proves_ that having a large number of open tickets discourages our users from opening new issues when they encounter bugs, even severe performance regressions.

I recommend, if you think there is any reason to believe an issue is inactive, close it! We can always re-open issues if the re-occur.

As a bystander and purely philosophically, the action of "closing" feels gratuitiously non-injective, since it conflates "inactivity" with "completion". Could it be that we could have a more discerning tracker, which would show the "not inactive" subset of "open" issues by default? Hardly so, with github, and yet.. -- regards, Косырев Серёга