[ocaml-platform] Improving the opam-repository issue tracker

[Ivan Gotovchits]

Probably, we can all help maintainers, by reviewing our own issues, and
probably closing them.
For this we need to substitute USER with our github log in the following
link:

   https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/issues/created_by/USER

Regards,
Ivan

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Perhaps what is needed is a somewhat tedious day with maintainers in the
>> same (virtual) place, so that (brief) discussions can take place
>> immediately, to control the backlog?
>
>
> Maybe for another time, but have opam-repository maintainers and
> contributors considered having an actual get-together event? Given the
> current distribution, Cambridge or London could be good starting points.
> (I'm personally stuck on the wrong side of the Atlantic before January, but
> in general terms I would consider attending such an event. There would also
> be interesting discussions to be had regarding opam 2.0 migration and
> Conex.)
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas at gazagnaire.org>
> wrote:
>
>> >> Nowadays I consider it a lost cause when I file an issue on the opam-
>> >> repository.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is an issue.
>> >>
>> >> I perfectly understand that from the point of view of repo maintainers
>> the
>> >> amount of issues (136 now) doesn't entice them to go through the
>> backlog
>> >> to try to fix or close them. However I believe that if we try to limit
>> the
>> >> backlog or tag them more appropriately there may be a better chance
>> that
>> >> issues do not simply get ignored.
>> >>
>> >> Going through the least recently updated issues:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/ocaml/opam-
>> >> repository/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+sort%3Aupdated-asc
>> >>
>> >> here are a few things that come to mind:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Kill that `request for package` tag. Being a developer-oriented
>> package
>> >> system I don't think the opam repository is the place to ask for
>> >> packaging, people should ask upstream (I don't say this didn't make
>> sense
>> >> when opam was a baby).
>> >> 2. Kill too open ended questions with the `question` tag.
>> >> 3. Go through the `bug` tag. It seems a lot of old things can be
>> closed.
>> >
>> > Agreed - I was briefly involved with Git-for-Windows. I disliked hugely
>> the way the principal maintainer runs that project, but one thing which was
>> very impressive was his rapid triage of issues. For standard FAQ questions,
>> "we" (i.e. a maintainer) should comment with the appropriate FAQ link
>> (number 1 would be advice either to contact upstream or a pointer to the
>> packaging instructions; number 2 would either link to the manual or a
>> general FAQ to open an issue on the appropriate docs repository; etc.) and
>> immediately *close* the issue. It doesn't prevent the poster from
>> commenting a little further, but it removes a "pointless" issue from the
>> list as quickly as possible. Also, if an issue was woefully lacking in
>> required information, the issue was closed, rather than requesting further
>> information and leaving it open. The OP can always re-open the issue having
>> supplied further details (or start a fresh one).
>> >
>> > If your issue survives that process, his next stage was tag it and
>> determine who was going to fix it - if it a maintainer volunteers, it's
>> assigned; otherwise if you don't agree to fix it, it's closed at once
>> (happens with feature requests more than bugs, obviously).
>> >
>> > Finally, about once a month, he'd go through old issues and ping them
>> for status - and close anything which seemed not to be making progress.
>> >
>> > It seems to me that for opam-repository a ruthless model would work
>> well! Or, as we can see, you can't see the wood for them trees...
>> >
>> >> 4. There seem to be a lot of old install glitches that I'm sure are no
>> >> longer relevant.
>> >> 5. There are a few open issues where people say that the problem is
>> >> solved, they should be closed...
>> >>
>> >> I think we should walk up from the oldest issues and whenever things
>> are
>> >> are unclear tag them with `scheduled for closure` and comment that
>> without
>> >> any further feedback in 7 days, the issue will be closed. Also in
>> general
>> >> it would be nice to introduce tags to distinguish between repo
>> >> organisation issues like [1] (may be long lived) and end-user repo
>> install
>> >> failures like [2] (should be short lived).
>> >
>> > Perhaps what is needed is a somewhat tedious day with maintainers in
>> the same (virtual) place, so that (brief) discussions can take place
>> immediately, to control the backlog?
>>
>> I agree, I rarely look at the issue tracker and its current state makes
>> me quite sad (these two are maybe related). Any help to triage these issues
>> would be greatly appreciated. I will make a quick first scan to close the
>> obvious ones.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Platform mailing list
>> Platform at lists.ocaml.org
>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at lists.ocaml.org
> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/platform/attachments/20160927/ac8c9cf5/attachment-0001.html>