[eqvinox]

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]

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

[eqvinox]

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

The rebuke to your comment is right in your comment: "other ticket systems do this by…"

The ticket system does it. As in, it has it built-in and/or well integrated. If GitHub had the same level of integration that other ticket systems achieve with their automation, this'd be a non-issue. But it doesn't, and it's a huge problem.

P.S.: I hate to break it to you, but "I hate to break it to you, but" is quite poor form.

[stonogo]

No, it's not that well integrated. They don't call it 'tags' but they work exactly the same way. JIRA, the most commonly cited example in this thread, has a whole separate engine for it and your JIRA admin builds the ticket flow manually. All the way back in RT this sort of thing was handled by a cron job. Github leveraging actions to accomplish this isn't much of a difference.

P.S. I didn't ask