Facundo Batista wrote:
2008/2/23, Virgil Dupras email@example.com:
The flow seems healthy to me.
What I don't see healthy is that we have, per week, around 30 issues more open (30 is the difference between those closed, and the new ones).
So, the curve is always going up... fast.
As Andrew says, the only way to "fix" this, if you think it needs fixing, is to recruit new developers and encourage all developers to treat outstanding issues as a higher priority than they currently do.
Guido is happy with the current issue count, and relatively few of them are serious. Andrew has been organizing regular bug days. If the count keeps going up that's as much a measure of the increase in use as it is anything else.
I do think it would be a good idea to have a crew continually working to address the outstanding issues, but it isn't glamorous work and the fact remains that you need a significant understanding of the ecosphere to fix things in a sanitary way that's acceptable to committers. It would be good to address that issue (shoud we put it in the tracker?), but it would take significant efforts in evangelism and training. Most developers would rather just write code ...
Enlarging the pool of committers too quickly probably puts quality control at risk, something I'd be loath to see happen given Python's excellent record in this respect.
A larger team (not necessarily all committers) could help us improve quality and reduce the issue count. Deleting issues purely on grounds of age is simply throwing away useful information to reduce a numeric metric that doesn't really relate directly to quality, and quality assurance is the real point of having the tracker.