Yes, we're not very good at closing PRs. We also don't have as much regular personnel availability as some/all of those projects. We are used by a more focused (and more applied) user group, so don't get the same contributor pool or quality, necessarily.

I don't think having excess open issues/PRs is terrible, though. Why do you consider it important?

We have periodically gone through issues. PRs can be harder. Part of this might be a more robust labelling scheme, but we've found they're hard to maintain.

I'll look at these specific issues/PRs later.

Why do you consider it important?

no specific reason, maybe just the increasing cost of keeping track of so many issues/PRs from your side.

I hesitate a lot before posting this issue, so if there is something inappropriate, kindly regret me, at least my intention is not bad :)

My personal take on this: github issues are like google search results. If you are not in the first page, it is pretty much the same as not existing. If an issue/PR is really important someone will bump into it creating some activity and the issue will be back on the first page.

Yes it would feel a bit better to have issues closed when appropriate (I generally insist on using "Fix #issueNumber" in PR descriptions) but 1. this is pretty much a lost cause 2. this is taking time away from more important problems.

I closed the PRs you mentioned, closing.

Thanks :) I think at some point, we might consider to improve contributor guide or even PR template to tell contributors to use Fixes and Closes to point to relevant issues / PRs. I sometimes imagine if I am at your point, I'll be so frustrating to merge something like 7910 because I need to manually close 3 issues/PRs. Anyway, ignore the message if everything seems fine from your perspective.

PR welcome.