Hi
It is a bit of disappointing that some Github bot has been closing bunch of bugs and feature requests. I realize that it makes it look like the project has no bug reports but it is disrepectful if you will. It is even closing stuff that were filed couple months ago.
I do not mind if one of the devs closes my reports but a bot? The sad part is that the devs will never see those again.
I know it is not the Joplin project did this but whoever came up with the Stale bot idea was smoking crap.
First of all, a lot of projects use bots to handle their vast amount of issues.
Secondly, the issue tracker is for confirmed and/or reproducible bugs and accepted feature requests.
Thirdly, if you look at the bot configuration, it marks an issue as stale after 90 days of inactivity. Should in such a case nobody reply or add a comment, it will be closed after 7 days.
I'm sorry, but in that case the issue is dead. 90 days of inactivity and then after a reminder being ignored for 7 days by the OP (or anyone actually), what does this tell you?
I guess you were never in the position of having to go through hundreds of issues and dermine which ones are still relevant.
The sad part is that the devs will never see those again.
If an issue was not looked at for 97 days, no dev will look at it after 98 days either.
Hmm, I quit smoking a long time ago, although I still enjoy a nice cigar now and then. But I can assure you that the cigars I smoke are definitely not crap.
I am sorry but that does not make sense, a future developer might search for open bugs or requests couple years later and might want to fix or implement some of those, by closing those tickets automatically you are killing their potential.
I can see the need for clean up if the bug was inactive for 2 years, then yes, but you set it to 90 days.
I think you are still missing the point. As soon as a feature request is accepted or a bug is confirmed, it gets a label that tells the bot not to touch it.
Hi, how about this issue, that’s been closed by stalebot?
It got good feedback and lots of duplicates pointing to it. Perhaps consider reopening it? Thanks!