> Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed: […]

Clarification: It wasn’t closed on submission though. It sat open ~17 days, a bot marked it stale, and it closed when nobody responded to the stale label.

The two-phase thing is the part I didn’t know until recently: the stale label is basically asking “is this still relevant?”, and answering it makes the bot back off next time around. nixpkgs does the same. Bumping feels wrong on most trackers, agreed, but at this issue volume I don’t know what else works.

Anyway a comment should reopen it. Your CLI vs desktop screenshots are a better repro than most things in that tracker.

▲

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

By what definition of automatically does a bot closing an issue with low activity not count as "automatically closed"?

▲

Banditoz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just because a Github issue doesn't have activity doesn't mean it's not an issue anymore.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

kristjansson 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the norms of issue trackers are strongly opposed to “bump”. these autoclose bots may yet change that

	▲	hackernudes 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In this case there is a two phase staleness check. The bot marks it as stale and it is correct to "bump" it if you think it is still important. The nixpkgs repo works the same way. I think it backs off from adding stale again as it gets bumped. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but for projects that deal with large amounts of issues it's workable.
	▲	Doohickey-d 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, now the poster of the issue just needs to (tell claude to) write a bot which posts a "bump" comment every 17 days, and the bots will cancel each other out.