Old tickets.

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

The number of unresolved tickets has climbed a bit recently so I cheated 
and went and cleaned up some old ones to keep the count down.  The batch 
today were over 4 years old (arbitrary choice) and look to be done, 
superseded or in some way no longer relevant.

I thought they were all clear-cut but do reopen them if you see ticket 
differently.

Generally, what to do about old tickets?

Some are still relevant, some are addressed elsewhere, some have drifted 
to the point of being difficult to understand.  Where an old ticket that 
isn't getting any interest (there are at least 5 SDB tickets), I don't 
see that having it open serves much purpose; it isn't a promise to do 
anything about it. If new information comes along, it is likely in a new 
ticket. Yet open tickets do in some ways suggest they may happen 
sometime which isn't the case.

Thoughts?

     Andy

Re: Old tickets.

[Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>]

+1 on the obsolete tag

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:13 PM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote:

> > Yet open tickets do in some ways suggest they may happen sometime which
> isn't the case.
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> I'm pretty happy closing tickets with a status that indicates just what
> you are saying; "This is so old that we can no longer effectively work it.
> If you disagree, please open a new up-to-date ticket. " Maybe we can have a
> closed ticket status like "OBSOLETE" or something like that?
>
> Adam
>
> > On Apr 13, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The number of unresolved tickets has climbed a bit recently so I cheated
> and went and cleaned up some old ones to keep the count down.  The batch
> today were over 4 years old (arbitrary choice) and look to be done,
> superseded or in some way no longer relevant.
> >
> > I thought they were all clear-cut but do reopen them if you see ticket
> differently.
> >
> > Generally, what to do about old tickets?
> >
> > Some are still relevant, some are addressed elsewhere, some have drifted
> to the point of being difficult to understand.  Where an old ticket that
> isn't getting any interest (there are at least 5 SDB tickets), I don't see
> that having it open serves much purpose; it isn't a promise to do anything
> about it. If new information comes along, it is likely in a new ticket. Yet
> open tickets do in some ways suggest they may happen sometime which isn't
> the case.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >    Andy
> >
>
>


-- 
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren

Re: Old tickets.

[ajs6f <aj...@apache.org>]

> Yet open tickets do in some ways suggest they may happen sometime which isn't the case.

Agree 100%.

I'm pretty happy closing tickets with a status that indicates just what you are saying; "This is so old that we can no longer effectively work it. If you disagree, please open a new up-to-date ticket. " Maybe we can have a closed ticket status like "OBSOLETE" or something like that?

Adam

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> The number of unresolved tickets has climbed a bit recently so I cheated and went and cleaned up some old ones to keep the count down.  The batch today were over 4 years old (arbitrary choice) and look to be done, superseded or in some way no longer relevant.
> 
> I thought they were all clear-cut but do reopen them if you see ticket differently.
> 
> Generally, what to do about old tickets?
> 
> Some are still relevant, some are addressed elsewhere, some have drifted to the point of being difficult to understand.  Where an old ticket that isn't getting any interest (there are at least 5 SDB tickets), I don't see that having it open serves much purpose; it isn't a promise to do anything about it. If new information comes along, it is likely in a new ticket. Yet open tickets do in some ways suggest they may happen sometime which isn't the case.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>    Andy
>