Should we add a "waiting-for-info" issue label?

Every now and then there’s an issue that might have merit, but in the current state isn’t clear/actionable. Either it’s a potential valid improvement or there is a chance there is an underlying bug, but the information state so far isn’t enough to be sure. Those bugs are annoying when going through old bugs (for cleanup and to refresh the memory on “valid” outstanding problems), I’d really like to have an option to filter them out. Therefore I propose to add a “waiting-for-info” or “needs-clarification” or whatever issue label, that is added when we ask the issue-reporter for additional info. Then I can filter on that label and we might even let the bot close those issues after 90 days saying something like “info missing, reopen when you provide them”. I believe this is better than outright closing, as it creates less emotionality and also prevents close-open cycles if the reporter responds with the requested info (and at least for me, asking for info and delayed closing is not a real option, I’ll forget). Some candidates/examples:

Labels are free, so why not.

FWIW, in my mind, this has so far been indicated by the absence of a bug/enhancement label. But we could of course have issues that are clearly a bug, yet need more info…

I just tagged a few issues, which definitely didn’t need more info (mostly enhancements) and e.g. the latest example above has the enhancement tag (added by the reporter). Putting meaning on a default state feels dangerous, because at least I am probably just as likely to simply forget to tag appropriately.

1 Like

Looks like the concept is generally met favorably. Any comments on the naming? Otherwise I will go ahead using “waiting-for-info” the next time I encounter the need.

1 Like