3 ms·
It think it'd be OK to use the stalebot if you're more up-front about it's use and why it's being used. A maintainer should be able to make it known up-front "I
by justin_oaks 4y ago
It think it'd be OK to use the stalebot if you're more up-front about it's use and why it's being used. A maintainer should be able to make it known up-front "I don't have a lot of time, so I probably won't get around to reading this issue. And I use stalebot which will close issues I'll never get around to dealing with."
Maybe you could provide that information in the GitHub issue template.
That said, this would be a more ideal situation. I understand that open source maintainers are not under any responsibility to be helpful to contributors... but the world would be better off if they were.
- matkoniecz 4y agoI prefer https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues solution where issue creation is simply blocked In this case users directed to garbage dump issue tracker but it also can be skipped. Main problem with stalebot is wasting time on proper issue which is then closed without ever being read by human. Maybe compare it to place offering users to fill poll or write feedback form? And then dumping them straight into paper shredder? Maybe simply do not encourage users to fill feedback forms if you will shred all of them anyway?
- matkoniecz 4y ago> it'd be OK to use the stalebot if you're more up-front about it's use and why it's being used I would be probably OK if that would be clearly stated in CONTRIBUTING.MD file (and/or in pinned issue or other place seen by issue reporter who bothered to do minimal research).
- kube-system 4y agoI would rather a project that does not respond to issues be honest about it and just leave the issues open. Closing them automatically just to make the number on the tab look nice is the digital equivalent of sweeping dust under the rug.