On 04/06/2025 13:50, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
Le 2025-06-04 13:56, Ahmad Khalifa a écrit :
Because they're misleading and waste contributor time.
I don't think so, in general. Some RFH are not detailed enough, but many
are pretty clear about which kind of help is needed.
I have recent evidence of 2 newcomers complaining about wasting time on
RFH bugs. Do you have recent evidence of anyone benefiting from RFH bugs?
They're both useful within a "recent" time span (say 6m or 1y).
After that, why keep it and have a long wnpp page that's not useful?
Debbugs will have a record of archived ones for future historians.
I strongly disagree with this. Older RFP/ITP are often useful as they
document prior interest, work and issues encountered while trying to
package the project. They can also be referenced in blocks:
relationships with other RFPs or bugs (e.g. request to update a package).
A review process with enough votes to keep or close stale RFPs could be
interesting, but they should not be closed arbitrarily.
I say this after working on the 4th oldest open ITP (#412060), it
reduces the visibility of what's important when you have a list of WNPP
bugs that's 4-digits long! No one is browsing through all that.
--
Regards,
Ahmad
