4 ms·

Don't forget all major OSS repositories using a stale bot to close any issue regardless of how many people reported it or how serious it is. Close and lock at t

by halpow 1y ago

Don't forget all major OSS repositories using a stale bot to close any issue regardless of how many people reported it or how serious it is. Close and lock at times. Yikes.

lukaslalinsky 1y ago
Yep, stale bot got me to stop reporting bugs to Kubernetes, I spend time to gather details for an useful and it just gets closed without any human interaction. That's super disrespectful.
ryao 1y ago
I have seen OpenZFS adopt one, but whenever I have seen a bug that has merit closed by the stale bot, it is reopened by a contributor and a not-stale flag is added to prevent it from being automatically closed again. Note that I am a contributor, but I am not one of the ones who is reopening bugs and marking them as not stale. The few times I saw such a bug and would have done it, someone else beat me to it. The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us.
- halpow 1y ago
  I think that once a bug has been verified and keeps getting likes, it should not be closed. If the user never responded to further questions, then absolutely. What I see however is that maintainers themselves fight the bot removing the label and reopening issues. Over and over. Until they miss the notification.
  - ryao 1y ago
    Once the not-stale label is set, the bot ignores the issue and will not close it again. At least, that is how it works for the OpenZFS bug tracker.
- watwut 1y ago
  Mine were closed by stale bot. They had merit and reproducible example. I just was not stalking the repo, watching it constantly to keep it alive.
  - ryao 1y ago
    Which issue? I can reopen it and mark it as not stale.
- account42 1y ago
  > The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us. That doesn't sound like an even remotely ideal way to handle that. Don't just needlessly string the original reporter along until some arbitrary time limit expires.
  - ryao 1y ago
    It should be obvious to him that it is not happening given that several contributors all responded no. As for closing the bug, no one has volunteered to be the one to do it.
    - account42 1y ago
      If it isn't obvious enough for any contributors to close the bug the it won't be obvious for an outsider.
Aeolun 1y ago
I once saw one that only closed issues after two whole years of no response. I couldn’t help but think that was entirely fair.
watwut 1y ago
I stopped reporting bugs when I see the repo is using stale bot. One thing is to be ignored for a while, because maintainers are busy. Another one is to be told "we ignored you long enough, it is not an issue". Yes it still is. I made a reproducible example, try it out.
account42 1y ago
Yeah if I see a bot like that I just don't bother with bug reports to that project. Absolutely disrespectful to not even bother having a human look at the bug to decide if it can be closed.

by halpow 1y ago

Don't forget all major OSS repositories using a stale bot to close any issue regardless of how many people reported it or how serious it is. Close and lock at times. Yikes.

lukaslalinsky 1y ago

Yep, stale bot got me to stop reporting bugs to Kubernetes, I spend time to gather details for an useful and it just gets closed without any human interaction. That's super disrespectful.

ryao 1y ago

I have seen OpenZFS adopt one, but whenever I have seen a bug that has merit closed by the stale bot, it is reopened by a contributor and a not-stale flag is added to prevent it from being automatically closed again. Note that I am a contributor, but I am not one of the ones who is reopening bugs and marking them as not stale. The few times I saw such a bug and would have done it, someone else beat me to it. The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us.

halpow 1y ago
I think that once a bug has been verified and keeps getting likes, it should not be closed. If the user never responded to further questions, then absolutely. What I see however is that maintainers themselves fight the bot removing the label and reopening issues. Over and over. Until they miss the notification.
- ryao 1y ago
  Once the not-stale label is set, the bot ignores the issue and will not close it again. At least, that is how it works for the OpenZFS bug tracker.
watwut 1y ago
Mine were closed by stale bot. They had merit and reproducible example. I just was not stalking the repo, watching it constantly to keep it alive.
- ryao 1y ago
  Which issue? I can reopen it and mark it as not stale.
account42 1y ago
> The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us. That doesn't sound like an even remotely ideal way to handle that. Don't just needlessly string the original reporter along until some arbitrary time limit expires.
- ryao 1y ago
  It should be obvious to him that it is not happening given that several contributors all responded no. As for closing the bug, no one has volunteered to be the one to do it.
  - account42 1y ago
    If it isn't obvious enough for any contributors to close the bug the it won't be obvious for an outsider.

Aeolun 1y ago

I once saw one that only closed issues after two whole years of no response. I couldn’t help but think that was entirely fair.

watwut 1y ago

I stopped reporting bugs when I see the repo is using stale bot. One thing is to be ignored for a while, because maintainers are busy. Another one is to be told "we ignored you long enough, it is not an issue". Yes it still is. I made a reproducible example, try it out.

account42 1y ago

Yeah if I see a bot like that I just don't bother with bug reports to that project. Absolutely disrespectful to not even bother having a human look at the bug to decide if it can be closed.