[bisq-network/bisq] Stalebot is closing tickets after too short a time (#3962)

[fresheneesz]

I'm referring to a number of issues I was subscribed to where I saw stalebot try to close them or actually close them. A couple that I created are https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/3308 and https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/3017. I've seen notifications about stalebot a lot in my inbox. Its very common for an issue to remain valid for years. Simply closing bugs that haven't had activity in 3 months is not a good way to prioritize the work. Since people often only look through open tickets (and ignore closed tickets), having an open bug fosters discussion around the issue, where a closed issue may cause people having the same issue to not find it, or even if they do find it, assume that it isn't taken seriously and so isn't worth commenting on. Some people are too lazy to create their own issue tickets.

Its good some tags exclude tickets from being stalebotted, and I do think it would be a good idea to extend the list to include other tags, like you're suggesting. I do see that the issues are pretty well tagged. But I would still recommend increasing the timeframe. Dev resources will of course always be a bottleneck, and therefore you need to prioritize, but why not tag things with priority levels in that case rather than simply having the essentially binary priority of either closed or open?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/3962#issuecomment-584848079
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200211/3e1519e0/attachment.html>