Quoting Ahmad Khalifa (2025-06-04 15:05:25) > 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?
I do not have strong evince for RFH bugreports making newcomers happy. I dare say that I dont find your evidence presented here strong either: What you describe is newcomers being frustrated over not being able to figure out out how to navigate the complexities of Debian. That is a real problem, I agree with that. I disagree, however, that the solution is to remove features in Debian that newcomers risk "wasting time" on. I put that in scare crows because I question if newcomers' time is so precious that their going on en exploration journey in the wilderness of a non-polished Debian genuinely and conclusively is purely a waste. > >> 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. Did you consider that perhaps very old bugs still open might be quite hard to solve, and therefore not the most suitable for newcomers to try tackle - and therefore perhaps not (without elaborating in more detail than the fact that 18 years is longer than 6 mmonths¹) to bring into this particular conversation. - Jonas ¹ Oh, only now did I notice that you meant months, not minutes - sorry for my distorting your point in my previous post, I stupidly misread you. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
