[ecnahc515]

I almost never see bots close issues that are less than 30 days old. Many projects can change a lot in 30-90 days and the bug may no longer exist, keeping issues open when they may no longer be relevant isn't helping anyone either. If it is still relevant, it can simply be re-opened. I don't see any downside to semi-aggressively closing stale issues. If it's easily reproduced then most good projects will mark it so that it won't be auto-closed.

[ants_everywhere]

I encounter prematurely closed tickets all the time, practically every day.

So many software projects close bugs with bots, and they have an unrealistically rosy picture of how bug-free their software is.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> If it is still relevant, it can simply be re-opened.

I've seen places where tickets were not allowed to be re-opened. If a ticket was closed for any reason at all besides a misclick, a new ticket had to be opened with a link to the old ticket if necessary.

[loa_in_]

Automatic closing tickets is a solution looking for a problem. Humans should close tickets when they're resolved or no resolution is anticipated or planned. Putting an arbitrary number of days on it with a one way trip to the [closed] tag is like following a broken clock because it's right twice a day.

[jfyi]

> no resolution is anticipated or planned

This is the real problem an automated close addresses. They are are afraid to tell their customers this.

[wizzwizz4]

> keeping issues open when they may no longer be relevant isn't helping anyone either.

If you're moving fast enough that you don't have time to close them manually, you're moving too fast (and breaking too much).

[LoganDark]

Usually it can't be reopened because you can't even really get someone to look at it, because issues are wrongfully closed so frequently that they don't pay attention to complaints about the closures.

Take a look at this issue to see what it takes to keep something open: https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui/issues/41...

(not especially proud of my reactions there, but I hate being abused, even by robots.)

[ipaddr]

When I see some bug like this I do wonder why don't more people fix the issue themselves or think that it might be specific to their setup or accept a little random lag.

If I received a bug like that I would immediately think why are you telling me this... just fix it yourself and share your fix if you want. I probably have higher expectations from my users. You give the software away now they want you to fix it for them.

[LoganDark]

> If I received a bug like that I would immediately think why are you telling me this... just fix it yourself

Then you're part of the problem.

I am far less equipped to handle a bug like this than you'd think. It would take me so much more work and time than asking someone who already knows the project and how to work on it.

If I did this for every bug I reported, I wouldn't have a job because I wouldn't have any time left for one.

You know, this is also my issue with Linux. The attitude is generally that if you want to run Linux, you are expected to do anything you need completely on your own, including fixing bugs. This is why macOS is my preferred operating system. (Not that I can run it right now...)

I'm of course not entitled to anything from you (or anyone), but the one thing I won't do is fix it myself.

I don't really want to be a hacker right now. I've tried. I can be, but it rarely pays off for me. Not even financially, just emotionally.

[whiterknight]

You have a future in management.