2 ms·

This is exactly how I use it. Some people do complain, and I get it. But they don't realize that 98% of all issues are spam that clutters up the issue queue, an

This is exactly how I use it. Some people do complain, and I get it. But they don't realize that 98% of all issues are spam that clutters up the issue queue, and outside of dedicated time just sitting around labeling issues and manually closing them, there would be no way for maintainers of anything near-popular to sift through issues for anything that actually matters. As it stands, a few of my moderately popular repos get on average 5-10 new issues per day. One of them might have any relevance towards improving the project. I don't see the same people who complain about stale bots volunteering to sit there babysitting issue queues closing irrelevant ones and responding to, essentially, free support requests.

cxr 5y ago
You're way mistaken; there are absolutely people who recognize that these bots suck and also dump on the GitHub community for its tendency to abuse bugtrackers for dumb stuff like support requests and general project discussion. This comprises like half of my GitHub-related comments on HN. (The other half includes complaints that the GitHub generation has rendered the word "wiki" meaningless by applying it to things that are clearly not wikis and then taking an IDGAF attitude if you bring it up. The author of the blog post here is among the guilty.) Good bug discipline isn't new. It was understood at least 20 years ago and widely practiced with Bugzilla. GitHub and the types of users who go for it, though, seem to have a bent on organizational and operational regression. It's more important to chase self-actualization by doing things that feel productive because they keep you busy rather than thinking critically about how to actually be productive, apparently.