Meta: clean up the issue tracker

[allan2]

In the new issue chooser, feature proposals are supposed to go in the Discussions tab.
Questions point to Discord.

I get that Issues can be used for for discussions and questions too.

I do think we have too many inactive or similar issues that are clogging up the tracker.

For example, on SSG/SSR:

• Static Site Generation (SSG) Brainstorming Static Site Generation (SSG) Brainstorming #1379
• Architectural Idea / Question Architectural Idea / Question #473
• Proposal: Server-side rendering Proposal: Server-side rendering #41

Inactive questions or drive-by:

• Sept 2018: Does Yew provide an 'app will terminate' lifecycle hook? Does Yew provide an 'app will terminate' lifecycle hook? #401
• Oct 2019: Offscreen canvas transfer to dedicated worker Offscreen canvas transfer to dedicated worker #678
• July 2020: Yew nextjs Yew nextjs #1432
• Aug 2020: Why Component required to be 'static? Why Component required to be 'static? #1538
• Jan 2021: Cannot log in to discord Cannot log in to discord #1718

Suggestions

1. Clean up inactive issues.
2. Group issues or discussions.
3. Pin issues/discussions for important topics like Documentation, Router, Hooks.

[ranile]

Just a little FYI: the links are broken

[allan2]

Links fixed. Thanks

[siku2]

I do think we have too many inactive or similar issues that are clogging up the tracker.

I totally agree. It's just that right now no one seems to have the time to dig through all these issues and closing them outright doesn't feel quite right for most of them.

[allan2]

Could we add a meta tag on this issue?

What do you think for closing issues if a few months go by with no comment except for the original post?

[siku2]

What do you think for closing issues if a few months go by with no comment except for the original post?

That seems reasonable, yes.

[teymour-aldridge]

Maybe a Github action for that would be helpful?

[ranile]

It's just that right now no one seems to have the time to dig through all these issues and closing them outright doesn't feel quite right for most of them.

I managed to skim though the issues to get this list of issues. There's probably more that I missed

Invalid/Unactionable
#1754: fixed in master
#1549
#1794
#1233
#1086: Trunk solved this
#1100: unactionable (never seen this happen before, no updates either)
#724: Trunk solved this

Question
#1603
#1576
#1439
#1385
#1251
#1073
#204
#226

stdweb
#942
#938
#750
#607
#402 (because of cargo web)

misc
#1751 (this should've already been published)
#1581 (duplicate of #1004)
#1477 (#1477 (comment))

[kellytk]

@allan2

Clean up inactive issues.

That isn't what was done. An issue I opened was closed without being resolved. This is user-hostile IMO, as I explain here.

Regarding:

@allan2

What do you think for closing issues if a few months go by with no comment except for the original post?

IMHO that would only serve to discourage engagement with Yew in exchange for a false representation of project health.

@siku2

It's just that right now no one seems to have the time to dig through all these issues and closing them outright doesn't feel quite right for most of them.

I asked "Has the pace of dev halted again?" on Gitter on Nov 15 2020 22:22 and my concern was dismissed. IMO there's a more fundamental issue with the project than lingering issues.

[allan2]

I'm new to the project and I don't speak for any of the regular contributors. Thoughts are my own.

@kellytk I don't think anyone intended to be hostile towards you. People are just trying their best to improve this framework.
I posted a reply to you at #401. Similar sentiments are below for posterity.

Many projects close inactive or stale issues. It's not to discourage engagement, but to focus the efforts on issues that we can solve and to identify bugs.

Going through the tracker, there were just a lot of issues that weren't helping that goal. That's why I opened this one.

If you have suggestions for the project, try posting to the Discussions tab. I just posted one recently. People are quite sometimes but the project is still growing :) At least I'll keep an eye out for it.

[kellytk]

@allan2

It would be strange to take it personally so that's beside the point. As a user and sometimes contributor, I consider it user-hostile.

I'm not contributing further with the precedent set that initiative can be rejected with no resolution.

[mc1098]

IMHO that would only serve to discourage engagement with Yew in exchange for a false representation of project health.

@kellytk Agreed, a contribution in general should not be closed without some form of resolution unless the inactivity is coming from the author and their participation is required in order to resolve the matter.

Maybe a Github action for that would be helpful?

I like this idea, I haven't looked into it but I wonder whether we could use a label to mark an issue as "stale" as a warning and then have an action close the issue after a set amount of time. I wouldn't want to add this label on any issue that has had no response, only those that cannot be resolved because the author is not replying or that the issue is so outdated that it no longer applies. In the latter I think when applying the label the reason should still be given why it no longer applies and allow the "stale" timer for some rebuttal.

[ranile]

Closing this as issues have been cleaned up to a great extent and questions have been migrated to discussions.

Feel free to re-open this issue if needed