[Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

[Virgil Dupras]

On 2/18/08, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 11:11 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > > -On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras (hsoft at hardcoded.net) 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.
>
> -Brett

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.

Virgil