[mikeocool]

Their process is outlined here: https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.m...

> Maintainers review auto-closed issues daily and reopen worthwhile ones. Issues that do not meet the quality bar below will not be reopened or receive a reply.

Seems like not an unreasonable way to deal with the problem of large numbers of low quality issues being submitted.

[altmanaltman]

But how is it any different from keeping them open?

Like if they are going to sort through all the issues eventually (like they claim), why not just close the ones that are not worthy when they get to them instead of closing all by default?

Is it just so that the project doesnt have open issues on its github page? But they are open issues in reality because the maintainer will eventually go through them?

Nothing is "unreasonable" in the sense that an open source project should have the right to do what it wants with its rules but its definitely a weird stance.

[mellosouls]

They address the decision at the end of those contribution guidelines linked above, specifically:

It is a guardrail against burnout and tracker spam

Its based on their implied perspective that the majority of submissions don't follow those guidelines which helps determine their quality threshold.

https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.m...

[oarsinsync]

> But how is it any different from keeping them open?

If all open issues are actionable items, that makes expected workload a lot easier to handle.

If most open issues are actually in "needs triage / needs review" state, you lose the signal from the noise.

The issue tracker for a project exists primarily as a tool for maintainers, not for outsiders. Yes, the maintainers could change their workflow to create a new view that only shows triaged tickets.

Or, they could ensure the default 'open' view serves their needs.

[vanchor3]

Somehow going through closed issues just to reopen them sounds like more effort than just using the built in label system which is made for this purpose, but maybe that's just me.

[oarsinsync]

I can either change my daily workflow to accommodate the noisy herd, or I can change the noisy herd to accommodate my daily workflow.

[oefrha]

If that process actually happens then there’s absolutely no reason not to have the reviewing maintainer close it after review instead. The only reasonable conclusion is that documented process is aspirational at best and vibed itself at worst.

[cromka]

Sounds like a perfect way to agitate the community going against the established culture like that.

[63stack]

The established culture on a lot of projects is that you open an issue, and then you have to keep pinging it every week otherwise the stale bot closes it with "this issue is stale, closing, but your contribution is very important to us".

It's crap either way.

[mikeocool]

::shrug::

I quite like pi and learned about the contribution guidelines a while after using it. Hard to complain about people making software for free using a process that works for them.

I will say having a project with a slim issue tracker that only contains things the maintainers have blessed (and thus presumably are more likely to get worked on) is pretty nice.

If you’re googling for a bug your hitting and come across and auto closed issue, you know you have to submit a higher quality issue to get it looked at, rather than just +1ing the existing lacking issue.