On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 21:25:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I think we're looking at this in the wrong way.  [snip]

AKA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

On 25.01.21 21:03, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 12:48:48 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> But, at the same time, I guess it could be a bit demoralizing you know?
> 
> That's true.

I beg to differ. Open issues are not demoralizing.

> Sometimes, reality is demoralizing. That doesn't mean we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore it.

What's demoralizing about this exchange is that it seems to imply there are people around who have nothing better to do than waiting for you to die so they can close your issues in the issue tracker. Apparently they will even feel like they are doing a good thing as they destroy your legacy. :(

On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 20:03:53 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 12:48:48 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> But, at the same time, I guess it could be a bit demoralizing you know?
>
> That's true. Sometimes, reality is demoralizing. That doesn't mean we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore it.
>
>> It's kinda obvious when you push it to the "limit" that *some* kind of limit has to be put in place.
>
> Is it really, though?
>
> The purpose of a bug report is to provide useful information to anyone who may want to fix the bug in the future. It follows that as long as (a) the information remains useful and (b) there is a possibility someone might want to fix the bug in the future, the bug report should remain open.

Agree, the only point I'm trying to make is about a).

But well, having them forever is ofc the easiest solution. Its not a big deal, if the community can handle it.

On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 21:25:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> So don't look at the bug count as some kind of liability to rid ourselves of by whatever means possible; rather, look at it as a sign of life and the opportunity to grow.

Depends on the nature of the bug, doesn't it?

If the bug is related to the compiler rejecting too many programs, then it is ok.

If the bug is related to accepting programs it cannot generate correct for, then that is a big issue...

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 13:15:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 21:25:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> So don't look at the bug count as some kind of liability to rid ourselves of by whatever means possible; rather, look at it as a sign of life and the opportunity to grow.
>
> Depends on the nature of the bug, doesn't it?
>
> If the bug is related to the compiler rejecting too many programs, then it is ok.
>
> If the bug is related to accepting programs it cannot generate correct for, then that is a big issue...

True

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 13:15:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 21:25:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> So don't look at the bug count as some kind of liability to rid ourselves of by whatever means possible; rather, look at it as a sign of life and the opportunity to grow.
>
> Depends on the nature of the bug, doesn't it?
>
> If the bug is related to the compiler rejecting too many programs, then it is ok.
>
> If the bug is related to accepting programs it cannot generate correct for, then that is a big issue...

Well, the incorrect behavior is a liability whether we have an issue for it in bugzilla or not. The issue itself is an asset.

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 16:05:03 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> Well, the incorrect behavior is a liability whether we have an issue for it in bugzilla or not. The issue itself is an asset.

IFF there is development process that ensure that old issues are being reconsidered for every release. Having a process where >3 year issues are being recorded in a document in a structured fashion probably would be a good idea. Then they could be used for planning. Without that they will most likely never be included in any kind of plan? It is just easier to ignore an "issue" that has been silently accepted for a decade than a recent one.

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 16:40:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 16:05:03 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Well, the incorrect behavior is a liability whether we have an issue for it in bugzilla or not. The issue itself is an asset.
>
> IFF there is development process that ensure that old issues are being reconsidered for every release. Having a process where >3 year issues are being recorded in a document in a structured fashion probably would be a good idea. Then they could be used for planning. Without that they will most likely never be included in any kind of plan? It is just easier to ignore an "issue" that has been silently accepted for a decade than a recent one.

And how are you ever going to implement such a development process if you don't have the old bug reports lying around to begin with? :)

I agree that the process you describe would be better than what we currently have, but that does not mean what we currently have is completely worthless.

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 01:47:36 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 25.01.21 21:03, Paul Backus wrote:
>> On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 12:48:48 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>>> But, at the same time, I guess it could be a bit demoralizing you know?
>> 
>> That's true.
>
> I beg to differ. Open issues are not demoralizing.
>
>> Sometimes, reality is demoralizing. That doesn't mean we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore it.
>
> What's demoralizing about this exchange is that it seems to imply there are people around who have nothing better to do than waiting for you to die so they can close your issues in the issue tracker. Apparently they will even feel like they are doing a good thing as they destroy your legacy. :(

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, 10/10
#apocalypse

RIP devs 😢