On 2/18/08, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 11:11 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras (email@example.com) wrote:
Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE, not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.
A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information. It also can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is closed, the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for posterity. :)
PEP: -1 tracker: +1
I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE is accepted by core developers, saying "if someone proposes a patch, it has a chance to be reviewed and applied". It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks, confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.
My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over 1,700 open bugs.
So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.
Which is why I propose to have a mechanism to close bugs and RFE nobody cares about. over *1000* out of those 1700 open issues are 6+ months old.