Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@ShadowJonathan@tech.lgbt These terms have honestly never had a clear definition, and it's entirely contextual.

Now running with qBittorrent, and it's so much nicer \o/

Ah yes, and at the very last moment Transmission decides to throw a curveball at me by no longer starting, because of course it does

@kim Joke about only depending on stuff you've already written yourself before :p

@kim "As per my previous e-mail", dependency edition

@Gnuxie They don't, but that doesn't make it any less disrespectful and rude to instead expect a contributor to do that same annoying work *several times* and immediately yeeting the results into the abyss, never to be looked at by anybody. Which is what stalebots do in practice.

This is not respectful of people's time, regardless of circumstances, and completely unnecessary. This whole thing can be entirely avoided by not asking for repro/activity until such a time that the results will actually be considered.

@zkat @shine That is not "literally" what stale bots do at all. I understand perfectly well how stalebots work, and that is exactly what I am criticizing.

The problem there is "X amount of time". It doesn't ask people to verify the issue validity *when you plan to fix it*. Instead, it repeatedly asks them to do so, every X time, with no guarantee that anyone will look at the results whatsoever.

If your stalebot is set to 3 months, and it takes you 2 years to get around to fixing an issue, that means that a contributor has been asked eight(!) times to reproduce the issue, and seven of those times that work was entirely for nothing, and effectively discarded.

If you ask for issue validation when you actually plan to fix it instead, they only have to do that work once. And the result of their work is actually looked at.

@zkat @shine All this boils down to is "instead of wasting my own time on reproducing them, I will expect contributors to do so".

Not to mention that there is a much better solution to this: ask in an issue whether it is still relevant, *if and when you are planning to tackle it*. So that the contributor only has to do that work once, and their work doesn't get thrown into the void.

@zkat A stalebot does not solve this issue. If you do not intend to fix an issue after triage, then mark it as "won't fix" and close it. That's fine.

Stalebots have no such insight nor decisionmaking; they just blindly close issues because they've gone quiet, with complete disregard for circumstances, and frequently asking people to do triage work over and over again even though nobody will actually be looking at the outcome.

@eloy Yep, necrocomputing is very much their thing. Unfortunately also extends beyond suckless.