On 1/4/2018 9:44 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> DMD also has at least 30 PRs which have had no action from the author in over a year. There's no reason these should be kept open; they just take up auto-tester resources and lower the signal to noise ratio.
> 
> If the author comes back later, they can always ask a maintainer to reopen.

I can't agree with the "just close older bugs and PRs." There's good stuff in them. Even if the PR is no good, it provides insight to someone working on a better fix. Closing it means nobody will ever be aware of it or look at it again.

Relying on the original author to revive it will not work.

It's similar with older bugs. They still have discussion on them that contributes valuable information and insight to anyone wishing to work on it. Closing them with no action means the information is all lost.

As for autotester resources, it should be easy enough to have it skip testing any PRs that have had no activity for XXX days.

I don't believe "Logan's Run" makes a good foundation for a functioning QA system.

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 04:14:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 1/4/18 10:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> (Yes, I got the flu shot, and the durned thing did not work.)
>
> I had a flu shot once in my adult life. Never been sicker. Won't ever get it again.
>
The only people I ever saw with a flu (I mean a real influenza) had all one thing in common: they all had gotten the flu shot.

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 03:28:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/4/2018 2:34 AM, Mike Franklin wrote:
>> Walter seems to pop in daily, and occasionally reviews PRs, and his PRs of late are mostly just refactorings rather than fixing difficult bugs.
> There's a lot of technical debt I've been trying to fix with that, and nobody else seems willing to do it. For example, fixing the error messages so they make use of color syntax highlighting. It's boring, tedious, unfun work, meaning I get to do it :-)
>
> Another issue is I've had the flu for a while which makes me tired, and then it's best to work on things that don't require much mental energy.
>
> (Yes, I got the flu shot, and the durned thing did not work.)

the flu is nothing to sneeze at, at your age..

or mine for that matter ;-(

take it easy and recover!

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 03:28:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Another issue is I've had the flu for a while which makes me tired, and then it's best to work on things that don't require much mental energy.

I quess that applies easily twice as strongly if you code bigger things on the run, no? :D

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 04:26:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I can't agree with the "just close older bugs and PRs." There's good stuff in them. Even if the PR is no good, it provides insight to someone working on a better fix. Closing it means nobody will ever be aware of it or look at it again.
>
> Relying on the original author to revive it will not work.
>
> It's similar with older bugs. They still have discussion on them that contributes valuable information and insight to anyone wishing to work on it. Closing them with no action means the information is all lost.
>
> As for autotester resources, it should be easy enough to have it skip testing any PRs that have had no activity for XXX days.
>
> I don't believe "Logan's Run" makes a good foundation for a functioning QA system.

+1

A perfect project would be able to make quick decisions on PRs, but that doesn't mean closing PRs makes a better project. It's a little bit cargo-culty.

On 1/5/18 5:08 AM, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 04:26:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I can't agree with the "just close older bugs and PRs." There's good stuff in them. Even if the PR is no good, it provides insight to someone working on a better fix. Closing it means nobody will ever be aware of it or look at it again.
>>
>> Relying on the original author to revive it will not work.
>>
>> It's similar with older bugs. They still have discussion on them that contributes valuable information and insight to anyone wishing to work on it. Closing them with no action means the information is all lost.
>>
>> As for autotester resources, it should be easy enough to have it skip testing any PRs that have had no activity for XXX days.
>>
>> I don't believe "Logan's Run" makes a good foundation for a functioning QA system.
> 
> +1
> 
> A perfect project would be able to make quick decisions on PRs, but that doesn't mean closing PRs makes a better project. It's a little bit cargo-culty.

Does anyone know how the statuses RESOLVED/LATER and RESOLVED/REMIND are usually employed? Thanks! -- Andrei

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 10:08:11 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> A perfect project would be able to make quick decisions on PRs, but that doesn't mean closing PRs makes a better project. It's a little bit cargo-culty.

For my projects, even if a PR isn't perfect, unless it is just plain bad or goes in a direction I strongly disagree with, I'll merge it anyway pretty quickly and just fix up the bits I don't like later myself.

So if something is OK but not great.... don't close it, merge it! Just fix it up after and leave a note for the original PR author showing your fixup commit so they can learn from it next time.

On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 06:20:54 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> The only people I ever saw with a flu (I mean a real influenza) had all one thing in common: they all had gotten the flu shot.

That's a case of selection bias: the people who get the shot tend to be those who are already at high risk of getting the flu.

The shots cover common strains - or at least what they think will be common strains - but they don't cover all of them. So consider the math: let's say you judge yourself to have a 20% chance of getting the flu, so you get the shot. It cuts your odds by about 50%... but that still leaves you with a 10% chance of getting one of the other strains.

The general population, on average, has about a 5% chance of catching the flu... so even with the shot, you, in the very high-risk pool to begin with, are still more likely to get it than the average person, but that doesn't mean the shot was ineffective, and, of course, it certainly doesn't mean the shot CAUSED it.

On 1/5/18 9:26 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 10:08:11 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> A perfect project would be able to make quick decisions on PRs, but that doesn't mean closing PRs makes a better project. It's a little bit cargo-culty.
> 
> For my projects, even if a PR isn't perfect, unless it is just plain bad or goes in a direction I strongly disagree with, I'll merge it anyway pretty quickly and just fix up the bits I don't like later myself.
> 
> So if something is OK but not great.... don't close it, merge it! Just fix it up after and leave a note for the original PR author showing your fixup commit so they can learn from it next time.

You can actually change it first before merging as a repo owner.

-Steve

On 1/5/18 9:39 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 06:20:54 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>> The only people I ever saw with a flu (I mean a real influenza) had all one thing in common: they all had gotten the flu shot.
> 
> That's a case of selection bias: the people who get the shot tend to be those who are already at high risk of getting the flu.

Flu shots are relentlessly promoted, and usually free. People get them because they think they should, not necessarily because they are at high risk.

> 
> The shots cover common strains - or at least what they think will be common strains - but they don't cover all of them. So consider the math: let's say you judge yourself to have a 20% chance of getting the flu, so you get the shot. It cuts your odds by about 50%... but that still leaves you with a 10% chance of getting one of the other strains.
> 
> The general population, on average, has about a 5% chance of catching the flu... so even with the shot, you, in the very high-risk pool to begin with, are still more likely to get it than the average person, but that doesn't mean the shot was ineffective, and, of course, it certainly doesn't mean the shot CAUSED it.

I don't know what caused it. I'm not at high risk, I never get the flu. I only got the shot because I had a baby and my wife cajoled me into it (didn't get one for baby #2, and didn't get sick). But my internal bias says "it's because I got the stupid shot". Note that I got sick pretty much right after the shot.

But there is also selective bias on the other side. If someone gets the flu and *hadn't* got a shot, there's a bunch of tut-tutting going on around them.

In any case, I still will not get one and probably won't until I'm in a nursing home and they make me :)

-Steve