4 ms·

Au contraire, I think they amplify that signal! It sends a pretty clear message to people who file these annoying issues as well as acts as a deterrent to would

Au contraire, I think they amplify that signal! It sends a pretty clear message to people who file these annoying issues as well as acts as a deterrent to would-be pests who search for an existing issue before filing.

hardwaresofton 5y ago
I dunno, if you want to do that it would actually be better to just send that clear message in a more direct manner -- GitHub just doesn't have good tools around this yet. Until better tooling gets here, maybe it makes sense to just very quickly ban pests, and make it clear that pests won't be tolerated? Also I want to point out that I'm totally fine with quickly closing tickets with no reproduction details or without enough information. Bad tickets should get closed if they're bad, especially if there's a template in place that the person has ignored. I would say that if 10 tickets from different people are getting filed from a specific area it may be worth looking at even if all the tickets are badly specified. In general a closed ticket with an explanation is so much more valuable over time than the alternative.
- roryokane 5y ago
  I think CGamesPlay was being sarcastic. I interpret “would-be pests who search for an existing issue before filing” as describing good-faith bug-filers from the apparent perspective of repo maintainers who auto-close stale issues.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Agree with sibling that GP was sarcastic. > if you want to do that it would actually be better to just send that clear message in a more direct manner -- GitHub just doesn't have good tools around this yet. Doesn't it have the ultimate tool: If you want to send the message that you don't give a shit about bug reports, just don't activate any bug-tracking tool? (Or is it mandatory?)
a1369209993 5y ago
> It sends a pretty clear message No, it doesn't. If you want send that message clearly, you should state in your readme: "We don't give a fuck about bug reports, especially if they're valid and relevant.".

hardwaresofton 5y ago

I dunno, if you want to do that it would actually be better to just send that clear message in a more direct manner -- GitHub just doesn't have good tools around this yet. Until better tooling gets here, maybe it makes sense to just very quickly ban pests, and make it clear that pests won't be tolerated? Also I want to point out that I'm totally fine with quickly closing tickets with no reproduction details or without enough information. Bad tickets should get closed if they're bad, especially if there's a template in place that the person has ignored. I would say that if 10 tickets from different people are getting filed from a specific area it may be worth looking at even if all the tickets are badly specified. In general a closed ticket with an explanation is so much more valuable over time than the alternative.

roryokane 5y ago
I think CGamesPlay was being sarcastic. I interpret “would-be pests who search for an existing issue before filing” as describing good-faith bug-filers from the apparent perspective of repo maintainers who auto-close stale issues.
CRConrad 5y ago
Agree with sibling that GP was sarcastic. > if you want to do that it would actually be better to just send that clear message in a more direct manner -- GitHub just doesn't have good tools around this yet. Doesn't it have the ultimate tool: If you want to send the message that you don't give a shit about bug reports, just don't activate any bug-tracking tool? (Or is it mandatory?)

a1369209993 5y ago

> It sends a pretty clear message No, it doesn't. If you want send that message clearly, you should state in your readme: "We don't give a fuck about bug reports, especially if they're valid and relevant.".