5 ms·

> Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed: […] Clarification: It wasn’t closed on submission though. It sat open ~17 days, a bot marked it stale,

> Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed: […] Clarification: It wasn’t closed on submission though. It sat open ~17 days, a bot marked it stale, and it closed when nobody responded to the stale label. The two-phase thing is the part I didn’t know until recently: the stale label is basically asking “is this still relevant?”, and answering it makes the bot back off next time around. nixpkgs does the same. Bumping feels wrong on most trackers, agreed, but at this issue volume I don’t know what else works. Anyway a comment should reopen it. Your CLI vs desktop screenshots are a better repro than most things in that tracker.

Banditoz 1mo ago
Just because a Github issue doesn't have activity doesn't mean it's not an issue anymore.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
kristjansson 1mo ago
the norms of issue trackers are strongly opposed to “bump”. these autoclose bots may yet change that
- hackernudes 1mo ago
  In this case there is a two phase staleness check. The bot marks it as stale and it is correct to "bump" it if you think it is still important. The nixpkgs repo works the same way. I think it backs off from adding stale again as it gets bumped. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but for projects that deal with large amounts of issues it's workable.
  - jaggederest 1mo ago
    They should just utilize the old joke about hiring: immediately throw away half the tickets, because you don't want to work on an unlucky ticket. It'd save the run around and have the same ultimate effect. Or, we could properly work on tickets instead of making the gate "has enough time to follow up on this 14 days later"
- Doohickey-d 1mo ago
  Yes, now the poster of the issue just needs to (tell claude to) write a bot which posts a "bump" comment every 17 days, and the bots will cancel each other out.
DangitBobby 1mo ago
By what definition of automatically does a bot closing an issue with low activity not count as "automatically closed"?
watwut 1mo ago
The stale bots are such a crap.
fireflash38 1mo ago
Stale closing bugs is the worst. Just because someone moved on from your broke ass product doesn't mean the bug was fixed. I can't count how many times I'll find an old bug still there years later closed with 5+ duplicate issues all linked back to the same closed github issue that was closed as stale. It's just bullshit. Having a lower count on your issue tracker doesn't make the actual bugs disappear folks

Banditoz 1mo ago

Just because a Github issue doesn't have activity doesn't mean it's not an issue anymore.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]

kristjansson 1mo ago

the norms of issue trackers are strongly opposed to “bump”. these autoclose bots may yet change that

hackernudes 1mo ago
In this case there is a two phase staleness check. The bot marks it as stale and it is correct to "bump" it if you think it is still important. The nixpkgs repo works the same way. I think it backs off from adding stale again as it gets bumped. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but for projects that deal with large amounts of issues it's workable.
- jaggederest 1mo ago
  They should just utilize the old joke about hiring: immediately throw away half the tickets, because you don't want to work on an unlucky ticket. It'd save the run around and have the same ultimate effect. Or, we could properly work on tickets instead of making the gate "has enough time to follow up on this 14 days later"
Doohickey-d 1mo ago
Yes, now the poster of the issue just needs to (tell claude to) write a bot which posts a "bump" comment every 17 days, and the bots will cancel each other out.

DangitBobby 1mo ago

By what definition of automatically does a bot closing an issue with low activity not count as "automatically closed"?

watwut 1mo ago

The stale bots are such a crap.

fireflash38 1mo ago

Stale closing bugs is the worst. Just because someone moved on from your broke ass product doesn't mean the bug was fixed. I can't count how many times I'll find an old bug still there years later closed with 5+ duplicate issues all linked back to the same closed github issue that was closed as stale. It's just bullshit. Having a lower count on your issue tracker doesn't make the actual bugs disappear folks