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
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4