On Oct 6, 2014 9:16 AM, "Terry Reedy" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 10/6/2014 1:02 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 6 October 2014 07:22, Terry Reedy email@example.com wrote:
On 10/5/2014 3:39 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I responded on the issue, and will say more privately.
I wrote him and tried to communicate three ideas.
- Closing issues and responding to new messages, while important, are
subsidiary to the primary goal of improving Python. 2. We would prefer more quality and less quantity. 3. We each set our priorites; he should not try to do so for us.
I know Mark is particularly concerned about the "open issues" tally and constantly seeks ways to bring that down.
I think I can suggest some better ways.
A while ago I talked with him about this issue, and suggested him to write down all the "interesting" issues on a list and mail it to python-dev once a week, instead of pinging the issues individually.
He followed my suggestion and sent the list, but iirc no one replied, so he probably deemed the approach ineffective and went back to pinging the issues.
I also suggested him to work on the bug tracker code or on similar projects -- not sure if he gave that a try yet.
Best Regards, Ezio Melotti
Scattergun pinging of open issues is one of the easiest, but also one of the ones with a high hidden cost in annoying people - for developers, it may mean getting dozens of email notifications, for issue submitters, it may lead to anticipation of action, only to be disappointed when it's just a ping asking for a status update.
Since all aspects of this annoyance were not completely obvious to me, I
am sure they are not to him. With the discussion here, I understand much better and will try to explain to him.