Live data from Hacker News

Why users cannot create Issues directly

github.com

91–100 of 320 posts

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#91
“It’s not a bug it’s a feature!”

Just the first thing that popped into my head reading the reasoning. I think it makes a lot of sense to do it like this. Especially for a product which is cross platform that emulates / replaces other known products and on top has extensive configuration options. I also switched over from kitty a couple of weeks back and really like it.

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#92
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's all the usual "$APPLICATION is a memory hog" complaints, for one. In the SWE world, dev servers are a luxury that you don't get in most companies, and most people use their laptops as workstations. Depending on your workflow, you might well have a bunch of VMs/containers running. Even outside of SWE world, people have plenty of use for more than 8GiB of RAM. Large Photoshop documents with loads of layers, a D…

This depends on industry. Around here, working locally on laptop is a luxury, and most devs are required to treat their laptop like a thin client. Of course, being developer laptops, they all come with 16 gigs of RAM. In contrast, the remote VMs where we do all of the actual work are limited to 4GiB unless we get manager and IT approval for more.

Yes, zero latency typing in your local IDE on a laptop sounds like the dream.

In enterprise, we get shared servers with constant connection issues, performance problems, and full disks.

Alternatively we can use Windows VMs in Azure, with network attached storage where "git log" can take a full minute. And that's apparently the strategic solution.

Not to mention that in Azure 8 CPUs gets you four physical cores of a previous gen server CPU. To anyone working with 4 CPUs or 2 physical cores: good luck.

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this is an active discussion where we're trying to get to a point of clarity where we can promote to an issue (when it is actionable). The discussion is open and this is the system working as intended! I want to clarify though that there isn't a known widespread "memory leak issue." You didn't say "widespread", but just in case that is taken by anyone else. :) To clarify, there are a few challenges here: 1.…

Valgrind won’t show you leaks where you (or a GC) still holds a reference. This could mean you’re holding on to large chunks of memory that are still referenced in a closure or something. I don’t know what language or anything about your project, but if you’re using a GC language, make sure you disable GC when running with valgrind (a common mistake). You’ll see a ton of false positives that the GC would normally cle…

It will, but they will be abbreviated (only total amount shown, not the individual stack traces) unless you ask to show them in full.

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#97

> 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves. For what's left, the majority are often feature requests (unimplemented features) and not bugs (malfunctioning features). Do I ever make mistakes? No. It’s the users who are wrong.

I think the main point is that all issues are ready for contributors to work on

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#98
This is the natural way to do it. I have had to use the issue tracker for asking questions (support requests) or informing the developer of something (like of implementing a related feature in another software). Clearly, those aren't issues at all, and the normal workflow steps like closing the ticket doesn't make much sense at all. They belong to the discussions list.

Issue trackers should be used exclusively for earmarking and tracking the progress of actionable items. This is somewhat similar to the integration between email clients and task managers, like how it's done in Gmail, Zoho, etc. You read the message first. If it requires an action from your side, create a task from it and link them.

There are other projects that do this too. A good example is the 'mise' project. Sourcehut projects use this workflow almost exclusively since it's the default by design. I think sourcehut had if before github did. What I would like to see is better integration between discussions/messages and task/issue lists on all these platforms.

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#99
post #69

A couple of big projects in the python space use this approach. Pisses me off as a power user. I find what are clearly bugs all the time, and am forced through a funnel that places the burden on me. Stinks of arrogance to think your project is that rock solid you should add friction for reporting bugs. Especially in “forever v0” projects. But, I am super lazy.

[flagged]

There's zero entitlement expressed by the parent, he's just trying to help the project, but is encountering unnecessary friction.

It's not that he has some inner urge to contribute in some way, he just encountered a bug while using the software and wants to report it. The alternative isn't coding — it's no contribution at all.

Re: Why users cannot create Issues directly

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a shame to hear. I had to give up on Ghostty because of its memory leak issue. Granted, it was on an 8GB system, but that should be enough to run a terminal without memory exhaustion a few times a week. Foot has been rock solid, even though it lacks some of Ghostty's niceties.

Note that this is an active discussion where we're trying to get to a point of clarity where we can promote to an issue (when it is actionable). The discussion is open and this is the system working as intended! I want to clarify though that there isn't a known widespread "memory leak issue." You didn't say "widespread", but just in case that is taken by anyone else. :) To clarify, there are a few challenges here: 1.…

I’ve been a very happy user for 2025, with some edge cases around the terminal not working on remote shells. I haven’t seen any memory leaks, but wanted to say I appreciate this detailed response.
Post reply on HN