← Back to context

Comment by asdfaoeu

8 hours ago

This still puts the onus on the developers to categorise the issues which I'm guessing they don't want to do.

8 comments

asdfaoeu

Reply
dymk  8 hours ago

How is that different from other bug tracking systems? The devs have to triage submitted tickets there too

Aurornis  5 hours ago

There are several automation solutions for GH issues. You could have an automatic “unconfirmed” tag applied to every user-created issue if you wanted.

  • eqvinox  4 hours ago

    RFC1925¹, section 2(3):

      With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
  not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
  are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
  as they fly overhead.

    Translation: sure, you can make this work by piling automation on top. But that doesn't make it a good system to begin with, and won't really result in a robust result either. I'd really rather have a better foundation to start with.

    ¹ https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925

    • stonogo  1 hour ago

      I hate to break it to you, but all the other ticket systems do this by piling automation on top as well.

IshKebab  4 hours ago

They're already doing that by moving discussions to issues. In fact it's more work for them because they have to actually create the issue instead of just adding a "confirmed bug" label or whatever.

I guess it probably leads to higher quality issue descriptions at least, but otherwise this seems pretty dumb and user-hostile.

  • lsbussell  3 hours ago

    There’s a one-click button to convert from discussion to issue (and vice versa). It’s hardly more work. But I do feel like discussions are kind of hidden and out of the way on GitHub.

    On repos I maintain, I use an “untriaged” label for issues and I convert questions to discussions at issue triage time.