367
Your server owner is now banned from participating on lemmy's Github
(programming.dev)
I will no longer be able to assist with development nor debugging actual issues with the software... Quite juvenile behavior from the devs. It stemmed from this issue where the devs continuously argued in public by opening and closing an issue. Anyway, thought I would keep y'all apprised of the situation, since these are the people maintaining the software you are currently using.
Well yeah the second comment didn't really had to be, but hey it's certainly not really reason enough to ban someone from the repo. The first comment I think is totally ok (as well as marking it off-topic, but optimally with an answer, probably marked as off-topic as well). Just keep an issue (it's not a PR) open, until the issue is resolved in one way or the other i.e. either solved reasonably via a third-party client (with links to it) or directly in the repo, asking the community (when it's not obvious that the issue is resolved), whether this is resolved, wait for reactions, and close it after some time based on that. Banning someone, or quickly closing or not reopening after a carefully written argument, that the issue is not solved etc. is just childish behaviour, especially for a community focused project (I'm watching a few lemmy issues on GH).
Thats where I think the misunderstanding was, if you look at the dates, many of the closings happened months after the issue was opened and no one posted anything on it, so it would clearly look to be a stale issue, so its reasonable to give a quick "Im closing this because of x" comment.
Often in those cases the person is doing a bunch of cleanup and has to close dozens of stale issues, so writing a multi paragraph response on every single one is a lot of time to put into it.
Then later the issue is re-opened again because it actually isnt stale, it just looks stale, and the cycle repeats as it continues to sit on the backburner.
This is all very normal on any larger project, its pretty common to see issues get closed and re-opened if they are very low priority and sit on the backburner for literally years, and its common to see they have a bunch of short "Im closing this because x" responses as a result.
But, if you look at the dates, you go "Oh, I see, these comments are months apart and not even really a "convo" but more just documentation.
I think here's a misunderstanding too :). With quickly I mean closing without getting feedback, or without providing a good reason why the issue is closed (without being obviously resolved), not the dates (which I think are only relevant, when actually awaiting a response). I have seen this over the repo a few times, good writeups often explaining some behavior etc. and then bam closed, either as duplicate (although it's not (example)), or "not as planned" etc. I think this is not good behavior for an open source project (I'm around the block for a few years contributing and maintaining OSS, for reference...). Especially as this is a real community project and not some random opinionated application (well depending on how you define it, could be true to lemmy, but I don't think it is...)
I rather let an issue open than close it, "just to have fewer open issues". I can close it anytime, and if someone searches for that issue sees it closed while it isn't resolved, it just creates confusion...