If it's someone else's project, they have full authority to decide what is and isn't an issue. With large enough projects, you're going to have enough bad actors, people who don't read error messages, and just downright crazy people. Throw in people using AI for dubious purposes like CVE inflation, and it's even worse.
The trouble here is that github issues is crap. Most bug trackers have ways to triage submissions. When a rando submits something, it has status "unconfirmed". Developers can then recategorize it, delete it, mark it as invalid, confirm that it's a real bug and mark it "confirmed", etc. Github issues is mostly a discussion system that was so inadequate that they supplemented it with another discussion system.
> Most bug trackers have ways to triage submissions. When a rando submits something, it has status "unconfirmed". Developers can then recategorize it, delete it, mark it as invalid, confirm that it's a real bug and mark it "confirmed", etc.
As far as I'm aware, most large open GitHub projects use tags for that kind of classification. Would you consider that too clunky?
Absolutely. It's a patch that can achieve a similar result, but it's a patch indeed. A major features of every ticketing system, if not "the" major feature, is the ticket flow. Which should be opinionated. Customizable with the owner's opinion, but opinionated nonetheless. Using labels to cover missing areas in that flow is a clunky patch, in my book.
They're already doing that by moving discussions to issues. In fact it's more work for them because they have to actually create the issue instead of just adding a "confirmed bug" label or whatever.
I guess it probably leads to higher quality issue descriptions at least, but otherwise this seems pretty dumb and user-hostile.
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.
Translation: sure, you can make this work by piling automation on top. But that doesn't make it a good system to begin with, and won't really result in a robust result either. I'd really rather have a better foundation to start with.
> As far as I'm aware, most large open GitHub projects use tags for that kind of classification. Would you consider that too clunky?
Speaking for another large open GitHub project:
Absofuckinglutely yes.
I cannot overstate how bad this workflow is. There seems to be a development now in other platforms becoming more popular (gitlab, forgejo/codeberg, etc.) and I hope to god that it either forces GitHub to improve this pile of expletive or makes these "alternate" platforms not be so alternate anymore so we can move off.
IMO it still has poor discoverability, constant filtering between the triage status flags and non-flagged stuff, stuff that might not have been flagged by accident, reporters putting tags on issues themselves, issues can only be closed by non-admins rather than truly deleted, random people complaining about this or that on unrelated tickets...
It all stems from the fact that all issues are in this one large pool rather than there being a completely separate list with already vetted stuff that nobody else can write into.
Sounds like it could be fixed by making it configurable to hide all issues without a certain tag (or auto-apply a hiding tag) for the issues "landing page".
I take the Basecamp philosophy of, “If it’s important enough, we won’t be able to ignore it, and it’s ok for anything else to fall through the cracks until someone feels like working on it.”
Well, that’s a paraphrase, but I remember reading that rough idea on their blog years ago, and it strikes me as perfectly fine for many kinds of projects.
You're 100% correct. I had a CVE reported to me in ~2022, shortly after the ChatGPT launch. I spent 4 hours slicing and dicing the issue, responding to how it was wrong, linking to background information, specific lines in the code, and then asking for or what am I missing. The response was literally "shrugs AI". Good for them.
Yeah but the article / post linked does not say that they won't look at reports of bugs or security problems, just that they are using issues to manage things they have decided are issues that should be worked on, and so public reporting using issues tickets will mess up that system they have. It's purely about their project's use of the issues system in github.
Unfortunately there is no such magic bullet for trawling through bug reports from users, but pushing more work out to the reporter can be reasonably effective at avoiding that kind of time wasting. Require that the reporters communicate responsively, that they test things promptly, that they provide reproducers and exact recipes for reproduction. Ask that they run git bisect / creduce / debug options / etc. Proactively close out bugs or mark them appropriately if reporters don't do the work.
I believe most of it is people expecting stuff to work differently, not having time to wrap their head around proper usage of system, because they need specific outcome and they don't need mastery of the tool.
Downside is that "Facebookization" created a trend where people expect everything to be obvious and achievable in minimal amount of clicks, without configuring anything.
Now "LLMization" will push the trend forward. If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box, why would I need to click around or type some arcane configuration for a tool?
I don't think in general it is bad - it is only bad for specialist software where you cannot use that software without deeper understanding, but the expectation is still there.
It is weird to push the idea that Facebook is some kind of pinacle of good and easy to use UI. That's the first one. It's quite the opposite, with people constantly complaining how bad, clunky and confusing Facebook is. And it is not the recent trend either. It has always been this way and e.g. VK has always had a better UI/UX that Facebook (and Telegram's is better that Whatsapp's).
But still, compared to something like email, the previous standard for most people, Facebook was an unbelievable step forward. People complain about anything.
Facebook's "load a web page and try to do the thing you wanted to do" UI is terrible. Flabbergastingly bad.
Try to do basic stuff like set up an event with an arbitrary string as a location (eg "my house") -- it can't be done.
Try navigating backwards. Depends on the page but I'd say this fails to take you back to the previous screen at least half the time (sometimes skipping a page, sometimes dumping you on a blank page).
And the infinite scrolling lags like nowhere else, every few posts and ads it stalls out while loading the next page (instead of loading the next several pages at once).
I'm guessing advertisers never actually look at the site to see if it's worth spending as much as they do.
> If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box
IME, people cannot even articulate what they want when the know what they want, let alone when they don’t even understand what they want in the first place.
Yeah but a good issue tracker should be able to help you filter that stuff out. That ghostty finds discussions to be a better way to triage user requests/issues is somewhat quirky, although a perfectly valid option. As is just using issues, imo. Just good to make sure users know how to report an issue, and what information to include.
To be clear, I think discussions on the whole as a product are pretty bad. I'm not happy having to use them, but given my experience trying different approaches across multiple "popular" projects on GH, this approach has so far been the least bad. Although I'm still sad about it.
> Yeah but a good issue tracker should be able to help you filter that stuff out.
Agreed. This highlights GitHub's issue management system being inadequate.
Don't forget the rude, entitled, and aggressive, they are legion.
It's simply a great idea. The mindset should be 'understand what's happening', not 'this is the software's fault'.
The discussion area also serves as a convenient explanation/exploration of the surrounding issues that is easy to find. It reduces the maintainer's workload and should be the default.
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. The report at hand seems to affect a very limited number of users (given the lack of reports and information about them). There are lots of X meme posts about Ghostty in the macOS "Force Close" window using a massive amount of RAM but that isn't directly useful because that window also reports all the RAM _child processes_ are using (e.g. if you run a command in your shell that consumes 100 GB of RAM, macOS reports it as Ghostty using 100 GB of RAM). And the window by itself also doesn't tell us what you were doing in Ghostty. It farms good engagement, though.
2. We've run Ghostty on Linux under Valgrind in a variety of configurations (the full GUI), we run all of Ghostty's unit tests under Valgrind in CI for every commit, and we've run Ghostty on macOS with the Xcode Instruments leak checker in a variety of configurations and we haven't yet been able to find any leaks. Both of these run fully clean. So, the "easy" tools can't find it.
3. Following point 1 and 2, no maintainer familiar with the codebase has ever seen leaky behavior. Some of us run a build of Ghostty, working full time in a terminal, for weeks, and memory is stable.
4. Our Discord has ~30K users, and within it, we only have one active user who periodically gets a large memory issue. They haven't been able to narrow this down to any specific reproduction and they aren't familiar enough with the codebase to debug it themselves, unfortunately. They're trying!
To be clear, I 100% believe that there is some kind of leak affecting some specific configuration of users. That's why the discussion is open and we're soliciting input. I even spent about an hour today on the latest feedback (posted earlier today) trying to use that information to narrow it down. No dice, yet.
If anyone has more info, we'd love to find this. :)
This illustrates the difficulty of maintaining a separation between bugs and discussions:
> To be clear, I 100% believe that there is some kind of leak affecting some specific configuration of users
In this case it seems you believe a bug exists, but it isn't sufficiently well-understood and actionable to graduate to the bug tracker.
But the threshold of well-understood and actionable is fuzzy and subjective. Most bugs, in my experience, start with some amount of investigative work, and are actionable in the sense that some concrete steps would further the investigation, but full understanding is not achieved until very late in the game, around the time I am prototyping a fix.
Similarly the line between bug and feature request is often unclear. If the product breaks in specific configuration X, is it a bug, or a request to add support for configuration X?
I find it easier to have a single place for issue discussion at all stages of understanding or actionability, so that we don't have to worry about distinctions like this that feel a bit arbitrary.
Is the distinction arbitrary? It sounded like issues are used for clear, completable jobs for the maintainers. A mysterious bug is not that. The other work you describe is clearly happening, so I'm not seeing a problem with this approach other than its novelty for users. But to me it looks both clearer than the usual "issue soup" on a popular open source project and more effective at using maintainer time, so next time I open-source something I'd be inclined to try it.
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.
In my experience, the remote shell weirdness is usually because the remote shell doesn’t recognise ghostty’s TERM=xterm-ghostty value. Fixed by either copying over a terminfo with it in, or setting TERM=xterm-256color before ssh’ing: https://ghostty.org/docs/help/terminfo
I spotted Ghostty using 20GB+ memory a few days ago on MacOS (according to Activity Monitor). I went through all my tmux sessions, killed everything, it was still 20GB+ so I re-started Ghostty. If I see it happen again, I'll take some notes.
On some level, that's impressive. Any idea of how long Ghostty was alive? Maybe this a new feature where Ghostty stores LLM model parameters in the terminal scrollback history? /s
I have a one bit that might be useful that I learned from debugging/optimizing Emacs.
macOS' Instruments tool only checks for leaks when it can track allocations and it is limited to ~256 stack depth. For recursive calls or very deep stacks (Emacs) some allocations aren't tracked and only after setting malloc history flags [0] I started seeing some results (and leaks).
Another place I'm investigating (for Emacs) is that AppKit lifecycle doesn't actually align with Emacs lifecycle and so leaks are happening on the AppKit and that has ZERO to do with application. Seems that problem manifests mostly on a high end specs (multiple HiDPI displays with high variable refresh rate, powerful chip etc.)
Probably nothing you haven't investigated yet, but it is similar to the ghost (pun intended) I've been looking for.
Is it possible for Ghostty to figure out how much memory its child processes (or tabs) are using? If so maybe it would help to surface this number on or near the tab itself, similar to how Chrome started doing this if you hover over a tab. It seems like many of these stem from people misinterpreting the memory number in Activity Monitor, and maybe having memory numbers on the tabs would help avoid that.
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 clean up for you, but some of those won’t be false positives.
btw, is it me or is there any justification for anyone including a developer to run more than 8GB of RAM for a laptop? I don't see functionality as having changed in the last 15 years.
For me, only Rust compilation necessitates more RAM. But, I assume devs just do RAM heavy dev work on a server over ssh.
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 DAW with a bazillion plugins and samples, anything involving 4k video are all workloads that would struggle running on such a small RAM allowance.
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.
our company just went with the "server in the basement" approach, with every employee having a user account (no VM or docker separation, just normal file permissions). Sure, sounds like the 80s, but it works rearly well. Remote access with wireguard, uptime similar or better than cloud, sharing the same beefy CPUs works well and gives good utilization. Running jobs that need hundreds of GB of RAM isn't an issue as long as you respect other's needs too dont hog the RAM all day. And in amortized costs per employee its dirt cheap. I only wish we had more GPUs.
> Interesting. I required all my devs to use local VMs for development.
It doesn’t work when you’re developing on a large database, since it won’t fit. Database (and data warehouse) development has been held back from modern practices just for this reason.
Current job used to let us run containers locally, but they decided to wrap initially docker, and then podman with "helper" scripts. These broke regularly, and became too much overhead to maintain so we are mandated to do local dev but access a dev k8 cluster to perform any level of testing that is more than unit and requires a db.
A really shame as running local docker/podman for postges was fine when you just ran the commands.
I find this quite surprising! What benefit does your org accrue by mandating that the db instance used for testing is centralised? Where I am, the tests simply assume that there’s a database available on a certain port. docker-compose.yml makes it easy to spin this up for those so inclined. At that stage it’s immaterial whether it’s running natively, or in docker, or forwarded from somewhere else. Our tests stump up all the data they need and tear down the db afterwards. In contrast, I imagine that a dev k8s cluster requires some management and would be a single point of failure.
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.
How much would it take up if there was less RAM available. A web browser with a bunch of tabs open but not active seems like the type of system that can increase RAM usage by caching, and decrease it by swapping (either logically at the application level, or letting the OS actually swap)
The issue for me is that bookmarks suck. They don't store the state (where I was reading) and they reload the webpage so I might get something else entirely when I come back. They also kinda just disappear from sight.
If instead bookmarks worked like tab saving does, I would be happy to get rid of a few hundred tabs. Have them save the page and state like the tab saving mechanism does. Have some way to remind me of them after a week or month or so.
Combine that with a search function that can search in contents as well as the title, and I'm changing habbits ASAP.
Regarding wanting to preserve the current version of a page: I use Karakeep to archive those pages. I am sure there are other similar solutions such as downloading an offline version, but this works well for me.
I do this mostly for blog posts etc I might not get around to reading for weeks or months from now, and don't want them to disappear in the meantime.
Everything else is either a pinned tab (<5) or a bookmark (themselves shared when necessary on e.g a Slack canvas so the whole team has easy access, not just me).
While browsing the rest of my tabs are transient and don't really grow. I even mostly use private browsing for research, and only bookmark (or otherwise save) pages I deem to be of high quality. I might have a private window with multiple tabs for a given task, but it is quickly reduced to the minimum necessary pages and the the whole private window is thrown away once the initial source material gathering is done. This lets me turn off address bar search engines and instead search only saved history and bookmarks.
I often see colleagues with the same many browser windows of many tabs each open struggling to find what they need, and ponder their methods.
I've started using Karakeep as well, however I don't find its built-in viewer as seamless as a plain browser page. It's also runs afoul of pages which combats bots due to its headless chrome.
Anyway, just strikes me as odd that the browsers have the functionality right there, it's just not used to its full potential.
If I'm doing work than involves three different libraries, I'm not reading and committing to memory the whole documentation for each of those libraries. I might well have a few tabs with some of those libraries' source files too. I can easily end up with tens of tabs open as a form of breadcrumb trail for an issue I'm tracking down.
Then there's all the basic stuff — email and calendar are tabs in my browser, not standalone applications. Ditto the the ticket I'm working on.
I think the real issue is that browsers need to some lightweight "sleep" mechanism that sits somewhere between a live tab and just keeping the source in cache.
I wonder if a good public flogging would compel chrome and web devs to have 80 tabs take up far less than a gigabyte of memory like they should in a world where optimization wasn’t wholesale abandoned under the assumption that hardware improvements would compensate for their laziness and incompetence.
The high memory usage is due to the optimization. Responsiveness, robustness and performance was improved by making each tab independent processes. And that's good. Nobody needs 80 tabs, that's what bookmarks are for.
There is no justification for that IMHO. The program text only needs to be in memory once. However, each process probably has its own instance of the JS engine, together with the website's heap data and the JIT-compiled code objects. That adds up.
I’m honestly amazed OP is managing 30 GB regularly. I’d wager it’s a tall tale. It’s sort of perfect troll bait on a forum because you end up with people sounding nuts, defending web browser ram usage, against the common position, that browsers are RAM hogs.
Browsers can get quite bloated, especially if one is not in the habit of closing tabs or restarting it from time to time. IDEs, other development tools, and most Electron abominations are also not shy about guzzling memory.
It's not clear to me why I'd want to use Ghostty over WezTern or Kitty, TBH. Ghostty is certainly trends on social media, but that's a negative signal for me.
Personally, I find the distinction between “issues” and “discussions” annoying.
For one, it duplicates the efforts in checking for prior reports. I might try 5–6 sets of keywords, but now I have to do so for 2 separate trackers.
Tickets cannot be moved between trackers, so instead folks resort to duplicating it and moving discussions… which is entirely opaque if you’re following up via email: you won’t get any more notifications and your future replies are silently discarded.
As a maintainer, having two trackers per project never made sense to me, so I’ve disabled discussion everywhere.
This is mostly a criticism of how GitHub implemented this feature, not of the decision taken here.
At the very least I think what matters here is the process. The same exact process could be implemented via, for example, issue labels. It would not be hard for maintainers to search for issues with label "bug", which only maintainers can assign. There are clear UX tradeoffs between the two approaches.
Why would checking be duplicated? One would need to check only the discussions in this case, since issues will be created from discussions once something is ready to be worked on (as I understood it)
That’s only for non-maintainer submissions. When a maintainer notices a bug or decides on a new feature, they can open an issue for that right away, without prior discussion.
Does this actually work? I would think it will be out of date by at least weeks, and I'd be surprised if their crawlers actually iterate through every issue page.
@jdx has gone one step further with mise. The issues has been completely disabled. I presume he tracks real issues in another repo. It'd be nice if github could provide first class support for such a workflow.
I don’t see how this demonstrates that at all. Issues as a concept seems sound. There is a huge variety of social structures that are built around issues which might make it a good or bad fit
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
I'm not so sure. I think this sort of discussion mostly falls within the realm of bike shedding. I'll explain why.
There's such a thing as a ticket life cycle. Ticketing flows typically feature a triage/reproduction stage. Just because someone creates an issue that doesn't necessarily mean the issue exists or isn't already tracked somewhere else, or that the ticket has all the necessary and sufficient information to troubleshoot an issue. When a ticket is created, the first step is to have someone look at it and check if there's something to it. This happens even when tickets are created by internal stakeholders, such as QAs.
GitHub supports ticket labels, and the default set already cover these scenarios.
To me this discussion sounds like a project decided to update their workflow to move triage out of tickets and into a separate board. That's fine, it's the exact same thing but with a slightly more complex process. But it's the same thing.
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
1. We often say 'should' too easily. The post isn't making such a claim is it? I would shift away from saying 'should' to saying: start somewhere that works for your project, gather feedback and evidence, and adjust thoughtfully. You'll end up in a place that feels authentic.
2. If anything, I would prefer the default be random. Then projects end up being natural experiments. See [1]
3. At a meta level, this reminds me of Brian:
> Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Intuitively, it seems like the Correct™ feature to handle the concepts of "issues" and "discussions" would be to have only one place to go to comment on a project.
There doesn't seem to be enough of a separation between the concepts of "issues" and "discussions" to support separating them into two features.
Given that discussions seem more general, it seems like the right path forward would be to have only discussions. Sub-features of issues could be added to discussions.
Because I don't want my default view to be "triage." If GitHub allowed default issue views (and reflected that in the issue count in the tabs as well), then maybe. But currently, it doesn't work. I've tried it at large project scale across many (multiple projects with more than 20K stars and millions of downloads).
Compared to that, this system has been a huge success. It has its own problems, but it's directionally better.
How does different count affect search? You can use a bookmark to change the view, and if using bookmarks is too much, ok, but that's not a bold universal reason.
(also, what is "huge success" in methods of organizing issues?)
bookmark: (and if your browser supports shortcuts, it can be as easy to open as remembering to type a single char)
For one, it might require several rounds of back and forth before its ready to receive the tag, but now the details are spread across several comments instead of neatly at the top
GitHub desperately needs a feature to pin comments in issues or sort by reactions.
Very often in those infamous bugs that has been open for years, having hundreds of ”me too” comments, there are gems with workarounds or reproductions, unfortunately hidden somewhere under 4 iterations of ”click to load 8 more comments”, making it difficult to find. This generates even more ”anyone know how to solve this” spam, further contributing to the difficulty to find the good post.
that solution is not trivial because it requires permission for anyone to comment on issues, which invites irrelevant or unhelpful comments or even complaints. the separation allows issues to be limited to developers only, those who actually work to fix the issues.
technically, messages are messages. this approach no more than grouping messages into different forums. it could also all be under discussion with a sub forum for issues, one for features, one for other topics, etc, and then there would need to be a permission system for each sub forum.
so all this does is to create two spheres of access for users and developers. and that's the point.
in the end it's really a matter of taste and preference.
That's not true, you can limit comments to collaborators if you don't like them. Although note that it's something you've made up, comments are not part of the original list of reasons. Moreover, comments aren't limited in the actual issues, so nothing prevents unhelpful comments, leaving your issue unresolved
An non-issue raised as an issue can never be closed, because the person who reported it will just open another one saying "Why did you close my issue without fixing it?" If that user is also raising valid, useful issues then you don't want to just ban them. Consequently your issues list will become unmanageable.
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that banning a user who is making a mistake in one area means you lose the value they provide in another (which might be valid issues, but equally it might be 90% of your revenue or something), so it's not always an obvious decision to just wield the ban hammer every time. Moving discussion of issues before they're created to a separate place helps keep the issue tracker focused on issues that are likely to be addressed.
An additional benefit of that is that a user whose discussion leads to a real issue being created will feel like they're genuinely being listened to. That creates a good customer experience, which is good for your brand's reputation. It's a positive experience. Closing non-issues in the tracker is a negative experience.
How is it not trivially solved by a discussion section? Why is your solution better for someone else's work flow? Why do you feel like you get to impose your way of doing work on an open source project?
Why do you feel like it's ok to make up nonsense about imposing? How can I impose anything on that project? Why break the expected/established workflow of users if the explanation doesn't work? Why are you asking 3 questions without answering 1?
each project has its own workflow. no established workflow is broken. github traditionally imposed a different workflow because initially it didn't even have discussions.
As a maintainers, if you want to be be able to tell real issues from non-issue discussions, you still gave to read them (triage). That's what's taking time.
I don't see how transforming a discussion into an issue is less effort than the other way around. Both are a click.
Github's issues and discussions seem the same feature to me (almost identical UI with different naming).
The only potential benefit I can see is that discussions have a top-level upvote count.
If discussions had a more modern UI with threads or something then the difference might be real. But AFAICT it’s the same set of functionality, so it’s effectively equivalent to a tag.
They sorta do: each comment on a discussion starts a thread you can reply to, unlike on issues where you have to keep quoting each other to track a topic if there’s more than one. It still sucks, especially since long threads are collapsed and thus harder to ctrl-f or link a reply, but it’s something.
> able to tell real issues from non-issue discussions
imo almost all issues are real, including "non-issue" - i think you mean non-bug - "discussions." for example it is meaningful that discussions show a potential documentation feature, and products like "a terminal" are complete when their features are authored and also fully documented or discoverable (so intuitive as to not require documentation).
99% of the audience of github projects are other developers, not non-programmer end users. it is almost always wrong to think of issues as not real, every open source maintainer who gets hung up on wanting a category of issues narrower than the ones needed to make their product succeed winds up delegating their product development to a team of professionals and loses control (for an example that I know well: ComfyUI).
Why do you say that? Curl (arguably one of the most used open source software in the world) currently has 5 open issues https://github.com/curl/curl/issues
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.
I always struggle to understand this level of entitlement. No one is forcing you to use any of these projects. The vast majority of the time, drive-by bug reports by users are a complete waste of time because they're either a user error or not described in sufficient detail to debug. In other words, mostly noise, and adding more noise isn't really helpful.
If you want to contribute, a much better way is to work on bugs that are already well defined. There is generally no shortage of known bugs in software, there is however a shortage of people fixing them.
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.
I think this is exactly the point most people miss. No contribution is better than bad contribution. Most issues people file are bad. I previously worked at a major OSS company and the vast majority of bug reports are just noise. It takes time to sift through them and they add no value, just waste time. If people did less of that, that would be a good outcome, not a bad one. Sure, there's useful reports there sometimes, but it's more rare than you'd think. On top of that, many of those are dupes of issues we've already found and filed, just haven't had time to fix yet.
Maintainers did a bunch of useful work for them and they refuse to report issues the way maintainers find the most useful, because it's a burden to help maintainers do all their free work.
In the python projects in question, unlike with the Ghostty project, there isn't an "issue triage" discussion category that maintainers look at. They have just discussions, and everything is treated as such. So when you raise an issue in discussions, it either goes to the void or people come in looking for a discussion of alternative approaches to do what you're trying to do that don't hit the bug, rather than treating the bug as a bug.
At a high level - the audience of discussions is the community at large, the audience of issues is the maintainers.
What Ghostty is doing with a dedicated category for issue triage should work just fine, despite it being an additional hop.
The arrogance in in users like yourself who think they know better than the project owners how to run their issue tracker. This is just a variation. It’s not a barrier, it’s an attempt to improve the quality of the issues that are filed in a way that’s more useful for everyone.
To be clear, I am not telling Mitchell how to run his project. I am providing info on how a change like this can be perceived from the other side. Do with the information what you will.
Fwiw, you might have misinterpreted the idiomatic expression "all the time" as meaning "100% of the time". It just means "often" or "commonly". The parent is just saying they often find bugs, they know they're bugs through experience.
Of course anyone can make a mistake. Maybe you prefer the 'discussions' route because it's only seemingly then possible for a projects own devs to make a mistake in creating an issue.
I'm a fan of this. My own projects on GitHub have an action[1] which autocloses and autolocks any opened issues until they have been reviewed and accepted by me, and I only consider feature requests from sponsors.
The real miss here is that there isn't a way on GitHub to only allow maintainers to create issues, instead we are left with these subpar workarounds.
I agree with the general philosophy about user submissions. Browsing closed discussions looks a lot like browsing closed issues. So I'm not sure that the policy is successfully turning bug reports into discussions. But it's at least keeping Issues free from noise for contributors. Github could do more to nudge users into approaching Discussions differently. https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions?discussio...
The point is the opposite, AFAICT. Any user complaint starts as a discussion. If an actionable bug report results from it, it goes to the tracker, which serves as list of problems to work on. A lot of discussions do not end this way, even though they may solve a user's issue anyway, e.g. by providing advice and reference.
Definitely discussing things could also happen in the issue tracker, and some <Actionable> tag could be used to mark issues that are ready to work upon. But I suspect that Discussions are better suited for, well, discussions, while the facilities of the issue tracker can then be used by maintainers / contributors.
Agreed. IMO, it makes sense to have a way to triage possible issues, confirm that they are, in fact, legitimate, and then create issue records to reflect them. As long as users have a way to report anomalous behavior, then, as you say, it’s really no different than using tags on issues. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
I've seen other projects that do this, and it makes a lot of sense. A discussion forum is a good place to start. It seems though that many projects don't have the Github "discussions" activated.
People complain about Github not allowing you to turn off issues and pull requests entirely, but I've always seen it as a positive. It means the truth about code quality, potential caveats, and better forked revisions can disseminate freely even when the author disappears. It becomes a spamfest at times, but is still probably a net positive for the ecosystem.
That being said, as long as you still have the discussion tab, auto-deleting all issues by default is not a big deal.
This makes perfect sense and is so much better than getting a flood of half-baked "issues" and then closing them automatically with a bot for "inactivity".
It's a good idea to reserve issues for well-defined, actionable stuff.
IRL every dev issue tracker needs a front-end bozo filter to handle the low-hanging fruit and the misunderstandings and the failures to RTFM and the cases of PEBCAK.
We've been doing this on the Renovate project for years, and it's been hugely useful - we get a lot of reports that users feel to be a bug, but are often misunderstanding or expectations about behaviour that isn't necessarily true.
There are absolutely bugs that get reported - either in functionality or documentation - but by requiring a level of triage in Discussions before promoting them up to Issues is a great way to keep things more actionable for folks wanting to come in and contribute fixes that the maintainers do agree are needing a fix
So how do the maintainers and contributers know when a Discussion details a bug ready to be worked on? Seems like, as with issues, they'll still be sorting though them and looking for the most active ones?
Edit: after reading the contributors doc, it seems that feature requests are discussions which should help. Unreproducible bugs, too; although I would wager that a lot of users believe they can reproduce bugs but in fact can't consistently, or believe their feature request is a bug.
It seems this approach is better but still requires someone to sort through the discussions before they're moved to the cleaner issues pile.
One big pile with filters, or a chaotic pile and a clean pile. That seems to be the end result of this, unless I'm missing something.
I think this is ok. They attempt to add a barrier here, with the attempt to increase the quality of the issue suggested. This may not be the only goal; one may be to have fewer issues raised in total. But there may be several advantages, as well as disadvantages with that approach - it is simply a trade-off.
In particular when I maintain an open source project, I have a lack of time in general so I need to move quickly. I actually don't mind issue discussions on my project, but people can not expect me to invest a lot of time into managing all of those; whether this is a discussion or an issue directly, is not so important, but I know that some project owners don't like open issues that remain open for years. It is kind of a difference in philosophy here.
One trade off is that I am not so likely to get involved in such a project. I may start a discussion, but in general I am very chaotic and may never follow up on discussions I started, simply due to lack of time, too many things to do, forgetting too much too (I do keep notes locally, but these files just keep on growing!).
> But there may be several advantages, as well as disadvantages with that approach - it is simply a trade-off.
Above, the word _simply_ conveys a lot of meaning. This sentence, when considered alone, might be seen to imply that all trade-offs are in a sense, ok, because they are all sort of a matter of taste. This doesn't mesh with my understanding of the world. I frame it this way: for a given objective, some trade-offs are better than others.
Put in reverse, when I see a project making certain trade-offs, I don't assume those trade-offs are in service of some clearly defined objective. Often I see people and organizations mired in trade-offs that are inertial and/or unconsidered.
There is another interesting angle to consider: framing as a question it would be: «When building a product or running a project, how do I make sense of a huge variety of trade-offs?» For that, exploring the Pareto frontier can be a useful method (see [1]) because it reduces the combinatorial explosion.
In the case of Ghostty, I think its values are indeed better served by this GitHub process (which designates an issue as a clear actionable task derived from a discussion).
One difference is that if I submit an issue, and it requires some back and forth to figure out the actionable improvement, then suddenly the issue is very noisy.
Whereas if it goes via a Discussion first, the back and forth happens elsewhere.
Arguably an separate issue could still do this, but it being a discussion sets the expectation better.
This kind of thing happens in Jira or any company's internal bug tracker, and GitHub Issues is not any different. If you want a certain kind of "hygiene", you can always do that in the existing system instead of inventing a whole different solution.
> Arguably an separate issue could still do this, but it being a discussion sets the expectation better.
As someone wearing the post-sales support hat for a non-OSS product, I appreciate use of "ready" tags in Jira. Unlike OSS, our engineers prioritize KPIs to be compensated for their work, and so we must find a way to track the triage discussions within Jira. In a significant way, Jira is solid proof that work happened, even if no actual code was pushed into the repo. If the support team has an unconfirmed bug that requires a technical deep dive, then the "non-ready" Jiras seem like a good fit. I'm open to a better way of doing this and would like to learn more about alternatives, but for now, this is how the teams engage.
Yes. Even for casual users looking for help, it’s nice to know that the “issues” tab is just real issues and not random, duplicated complaints and questions. Especially on a project like this that attracts a lot of attention and is highly sensitive to the user’s very specific environment. Most issues are going to not be bugs, or even something the maintainers can work on directly. Instead of trying to cram everything into Issues, why not use the underutilized Discussions tool? Now the Issues list is much more useful as an active tracker of workable items, and as a historical reference of relatively deduped problems.
So they are using Issues as a project board to track and manage ongoing work items, but Projects is built for exactly that. May be better in the long term to move project management to Projects and let people file bugs with as little friction as possible.
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.
I think this is the natural process, but how you implement it doesn't matter. A lot of GitHub repos use "unlabelled issue" === "a discussion thread". The benefit is that instead of having to search two separate systems, you can just search one (if you can have an aggregate search over both then it really doesn't matter), these two implementations are isomorphic
I don't find them equivalent or isomorphic. You are rolling a generic discussion forum and a work planner/tracker into one. In my experience, such two-in-one solutions rarely work well. Discussions and Issues tend to interfere with each others' UX significantly when there is no explicit boundary. And it looks like Mitchell Hashimoto and a lot of others feel the same way.
"Slop drives me crazy and it feels like 95+% of bug reports, but man, AI code analysis is getting really good. There are users out there reporting bugs that don't know ANYTHING about our stack, but are great AI drivers and producing some high quality issue reports.
This person (linked below) was experiencing Ghostty crashes and took it upon themselves to use AI to write a python script that can decode our crash files, match them up with our dsym files, and analyze the codebase for attempting to find the root cause, and extracted that into an Agent Skill.
They then came into Discord, warned us they don't know Zig at all, don't know macOS dev at all, don't know terminals at all, and that they used AI, but that they thought critically about the issues and believed they were real and asked if we'd accept them. I took a look at one, was impressed, and said send them all.
This fixed 4 real crashing cases that I was able to manually verify and write a fix for from someone who -- on paper -- had no fucking clue what they were talking about. And yet, they drove an AI with expert skill.
I want to call out that in addition to driving AI with expert skill, they navigated the terrain with expert skill as well. They didn't just toss slop up on our repo. They came to Discord as a human, reached out as a human, and talked to other humans about what they've done. They were careful and thoughtful about the process.
People like this give me hope for what is possible. But it really, really depends on high quality people like this. Most today -- to continue the analogy -- are unfortunately driving like a teenager who has only driven toy go-karts."
Personally, I use GH Issues for my own work, but there’s very few issues, so it’s not a burden. I’m a non-fan of JIRA.
I have seen GH Issues turn into Reddit-like flamefests (every now and then, someone posts a particularly entertaining one, here). Not my idea of productive work.
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.
A lot of bugs where I work have the same pattern: one person writes up either what they found to be broken or what they couldn’t do due to a missing feature, then a shadow task is created that describes the bug and what needs to be changed to fix or implement it. I’ve never had problem with both the report and the work-tracker being in the same place but I can see why GitHub calling the product “Issues” might not have been a great name.
Seems great to me. Perhaps GitHub should look into incorporating this into the UX somehow? So many projects are issues linking to other issues, I would love to see other projects adopt this to make github task tracking more usable.
Why would GitHub do that just because one project thinks is a good idea, especially when there is absolutely no concrete evidence that this is any more effective or efficient than using issues? All that we have is project maintainers' own beliefs. Bear in mind that these things can be studied and measured quantitatively.
The current "issues" system works fine for most small-medium projects and even many large projects. Any project who looks for a more "serious" solution would have its own Jira/bug tracker system, and you can find plenty of them.
The motivation for that is very convincing, yet a quick glance at Issues tab makes me understand it without any additional explanation.
It looks great. As mentally easy to process as Jira tasks. Or even better, cause it was written by a good "PM", which is not always a case commercially.
When I have a clear "Issue" which I've already researched, it's a bit of friction, but it doesn't seem like any more work to dump exactly the same text into a Discussion... and yea. Issues becoming a dumping ground is a real issue. This seems like a reasonable strategy / experiment.
Yes this is the identical pattern we strive for at SQLAlchemy.
However github has no option to close issues to contributors only.
These folks do what we do, they have an issue template called "do not use this". big whoop. People blow through those all day so we're clicking on "convert to discussion" all day.
I have never worked on projects that give non members write access to our bug tracker.
This includes both our open source project not giving the public access. And our entirely closed source internal projects not giving other developers within the company write access.
What I often do on ZeroFS [0] is to convert issues to discussions, it's a one click operation on github and helps reduce the noise for ill-defined issues.
Personally, I dig it! Selected parts from linked page:
"""Unlike some other projects, Ghostty does not use the issue tracker for discussion or feature requests. Instead, we use GitHub discussions for that. Once a discussion reaches a point where a well-understood, actionable item is identified, it is moved to the issue tracker. This pattern makes it easier for maintainers or contributors to find issues to work on since every issue is ready to be worked on.
This approach is based on years of experience maintaining open source projects and observing that 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves.[...]"""
Just do the Apple / Google / MS model where anyone can freely open tickets, and then those bugs are never seen or addressed by any developers. Essentially use the bug tracker as a honeypot to keep the users happy
The stale-bots are even worse than that. The reporter may have responded quickly, and the bug may be acknowledged as real. But if there's simply no activity in the issue for the month following, it will be closed.
> 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).
I can believe this. I think it depends on the project, but there are certainly some with very high false positives. Maybe that's indicative of a confusing app, I don't know.
>> 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.
This is a textbook example of being uncharitable. Framing matters a lot! If you frame something in an uncharitable way, you are likely to "lock in" that view and discount other ones. Mitchell is not saying «users are wrong to give feedback», he is merely saying «the usual conventions are not ideal for this project». Don't confuse the two.
It is clear to me that Mitchell is giving his answer to this question: «what process gives the best results for this OSS project?». He has adjusted the feedback process in a way that he thinks will give better results. This is a consequentialist framing of how to best serve the users of Ghostty, which I think is a useful lens.
Those modern terminal projects have weird defaults and quirky behaviors just to be different.
So to me it's easy to believe that a user expects something to work a certain way, does minimal or no research about it, and go directly to report a bug when in reality it's intented behavior.
Sure, issues for tasks and discussions for conversations.
And then there are developers who idly complain about normal participation on the work of issues and coordination of testing and feedback because it sends them a notification that they turned on. Unconstructive bitching drives users and collaborators away. They could solve their notification problem rather than impose a burden and emotional bullshit on everyone else.
This is a good AI application - something which accepts user problem reports and tries to group them together. Maybe even reproducing the bug in a sandbox if the description is good enough. Engaging with the complainant to get more info.
This could be useful if not used for enshittification, where you have to get past the chatbot to reach anybody useful.
> 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves.
Who does this project actually serve? The "users", or someone else?
If I'm getting overwhelmed with hundreds of issues per week about some confusion around installation or use, I think those issues are completely justified. Something should probably be fixed if the happy path is this obscure. Pushing this reality into another bucket is not the solution for me.
As an OSS maintainer myself, while the amount of tickets about a specific topic _might_ be loosely related to the quality of the docs/installation/etc, this hasn't been true in my observations.
It's one of those explanations that sound very plausible on paper, but if you see real world issues it just doesn't happen, users will ask questions that are clearly explained in the first paragraph of the readme, en masse.
Did you also read the part about using Discussions instead? It’s not that users are not allowed to voice feedback, make request, or ask questions. They should just do so in a different place.
> Any Discussion which clearly identifies a problem in Ghostty and can be confirmed or reproduced will be converted to an Issue by a maintainer
100% agree.
If it's someone else's project, they have full authority to decide what is and isn't an issue. With large enough projects, you're going to have enough bad actors, people who don't read error messages, and just downright crazy people. Throw in people using AI for dubious purposes like CVE inflation, and it's even worse.
The trouble here is that github issues is crap. Most bug trackers have ways to triage submissions. When a rando submits something, it has status "unconfirmed". Developers can then recategorize it, delete it, mark it as invalid, confirm that it's a real bug and mark it "confirmed", etc. Github issues is mostly a discussion system that was so inadequate that they supplemented it with another discussion system.
> Most bug trackers have ways to triage submissions. When a rando submits something, it has status "unconfirmed". Developers can then recategorize it, delete it, mark it as invalid, confirm that it's a real bug and mark it "confirmed", etc.
As far as I'm aware, most large open GitHub projects use tags for that kind of classification. Would you consider that too clunky?
> Would you consider that too clunky?
Absolutely. It's a patch that can achieve a similar result, but it's a patch indeed. A major features of every ticketing system, if not "the" major feature, is the ticket flow. Which should be opinionated. Customizable with the owner's opinion, but opinionated nonetheless. Using labels to cover missing areas in that flow is a clunky patch, in my book.
This still puts the onus on the developers to categorise the issues which I'm guessing they don't want to do.
They're already doing that by moving discussions to issues. In fact it's more work for them because they have to actually create the issue instead of just adding a "confirmed bug" label or whatever.
I guess it probably leads to higher quality issue descriptions at least, but otherwise this seems pretty dumb and user-hostile.
There are several automation solutions for GH issues. You could have an automatic “unconfirmed” tag applied to every user-created issue if you wanted.
RFC1925¹, section 2(3):
Translation: sure, you can make this work by piling automation on top. But that doesn't make it a good system to begin with, and won't really result in a robust result either. I'd really rather have a better foundation to start with.¹ https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925
How is that different from other bug tracking systems? The devs have to triage submitted tickets there too
Isn't that basically what Ghostty is doing also?
That's always the case. Who else should triage?
> As far as I'm aware, most large open GitHub projects use tags for that kind of classification. Would you consider that too clunky?
Speaking for another large open GitHub project:
Absofuckinglutely yes.
I cannot overstate how bad this workflow is. There seems to be a development now in other platforms becoming more popular (gitlab, forgejo/codeberg, etc.) and I hope to god that it either forces GitHub to improve this pile of expletive or makes these "alternate" platforms not be so alternate anymore so we can move off.
IMO it still has poor discoverability, constant filtering between the triage status flags and non-flagged stuff, stuff that might not have been flagged by accident, reporters putting tags on issues themselves, issues can only be closed by non-admins rather than truly deleted, random people complaining about this or that on unrelated tickets...
It all stems from the fact that all issues are in this one large pool rather than there being a completely separate list with already vetted stuff that nobody else can write into.
Sounds like it could be fixed by making it configurable to hide all issues without a certain tag (or auto-apply a hiding tag) for the issues "landing page".
Having used many issue trackers over the years (JIRA, custom tools, GH Issues), I've found GitHub issues to be very usable.
Especially with the new features added last year (parent tickets, better boolean search etc) although I'm not sure if you need to opt in to get those.
In fact, it's become our primary issue tracker at work.
I take the Basecamp philosophy of, “If it’s important enough, we won’t be able to ignore it, and it’s ok for anything else to fall through the cracks until someone feels like working on it.”
Well, that’s a paraphrase, but I remember reading that rough idea on their blog years ago, and it strikes me as perfectly fine for many kinds of projects.
You're 100% correct. I had a CVE reported to me in ~2022, shortly after the ChatGPT launch. I spent 4 hours slicing and dicing the issue, responding to how it was wrong, linking to background information, specific lines in the code, and then asking for or what am I missing. The response was literally "shrugs AI". Good for them.
Yeah but the article / post linked does not say that they won't look at reports of bugs or security problems, just that they are using issues to manage things they have decided are issues that should be worked on, and so public reporting using issues tickets will mess up that system they have. It's purely about their project's use of the issues system in github.
Unfortunately there is no such magic bullet for trawling through bug reports from users, but pushing more work out to the reporter can be reasonably effective at avoiding that kind of time wasting. Require that the reporters communicate responsively, that they test things promptly, that they provide reproducers and exact recipes for reproduction. Ask that they run git bisect / creduce / debug options / etc. Proactively close out bugs or mark them appropriately if reporters don't do the work.
I believe most of it is people expecting stuff to work differently, not having time to wrap their head around proper usage of system, because they need specific outcome and they don't need mastery of the tool.
Downside is that "Facebookization" created a trend where people expect everything to be obvious and achievable in minimal amount of clicks, without configuring anything.
Now "LLMization" will push the trend forward. If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box, why would I need to click around or type some arcane configuration for a tool?
I don't think in general it is bad - it is only bad for specialist software where you cannot use that software without deeper understanding, but the expectation is still there.
It is weird to push the idea that Facebook is some kind of pinacle of good and easy to use UI. That's the first one. It's quite the opposite, with people constantly complaining how bad, clunky and confusing Facebook is. And it is not the recent trend either. It has always been this way and e.g. VK has always had a better UI/UX that Facebook (and Telegram's is better that Whatsapp's).
Not as pinnacle of good - but pinnacle of “you don’t have to think, just scroll, occasionally like something” ;).
Then people expect accounting software to be just login click one or two buttons.
But still, compared to something like email, the previous standard for most people, Facebook was an unbelievable step forward. People complain about anything.
facebook literally obfuscates their UI to stop you turning off "features" they want to push on you
it is a UI designed to be hard to use
You're talking about two different things here (and I'm not condoning either, to be clear.)
1) UI = a clearly documented way to configure all features and make the software work exactly how you want.
2) UI = load a web page and try to do the thing you wanted to do (in this case communicate with some specific people).
FB is clearly terrible at 1 but pretty alright at 2.
Facebook's "load a web page and try to do the thing you wanted to do" UI is terrible. Flabbergastingly bad.
Try to do basic stuff like set up an event with an arbitrary string as a location (eg "my house") -- it can't be done.
Try navigating backwards. Depends on the page but I'd say this fails to take you back to the previous screen at least half the time (sometimes skipping a page, sometimes dumping you on a blank page).
And the infinite scrolling lags like nowhere else, every few posts and ads it stalls out while loading the next page (instead of loading the next several pages at once).
I'm guessing advertisers never actually look at the site to see if it's worth spending as much as they do.
> If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box
IME, people cannot even articulate what they want when the know what they want, let alone when they don’t even understand what they want in the first place.
Yeah but a good issue tracker should be able to help you filter that stuff out. That ghostty finds discussions to be a better way to triage user requests/issues is somewhat quirky, although a perfectly valid option. As is just using issues, imo. Just good to make sure users know how to report an issue, and what information to include.
To be clear, I think discussions on the whole as a product are pretty bad. I'm not happy having to use them, but given my experience trying different approaches across multiple "popular" projects on GH, this approach has so far been the least bad. Although I'm still sad about it.
> Yeah but a good issue tracker should be able to help you filter that stuff out.
Agreed. This highlights GitHub's issue management system being inadequate.
(Note: I'm the creator/lead of Ghostty)
Don't forget the rude, entitled, and aggressive, they are legion.
It's simply a great idea. The mindset should be 'understand what's happening', not 'this is the software's fault'.
The discussion area also serves as a convenient explanation/exploration of the surrounding issues that is easy to find. It reduces the maintainer's workload and should be the default.
For example, memory leak investigation is currently spread across discussions, x/twitter and discord https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2004938171038277708 https://x.com/alxfazio/status/2004841392645050601 https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/10114 https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/9962
but has not graduated to issue worthy status
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. The report at hand seems to affect a very limited number of users (given the lack of reports and information about them). There are lots of X meme posts about Ghostty in the macOS "Force Close" window using a massive amount of RAM but that isn't directly useful because that window also reports all the RAM _child processes_ are using (e.g. if you run a command in your shell that consumes 100 GB of RAM, macOS reports it as Ghostty using 100 GB of RAM). And the window by itself also doesn't tell us what you were doing in Ghostty. It farms good engagement, though.
2. We've run Ghostty on Linux under Valgrind in a variety of configurations (the full GUI), we run all of Ghostty's unit tests under Valgrind in CI for every commit, and we've run Ghostty on macOS with the Xcode Instruments leak checker in a variety of configurations and we haven't yet been able to find any leaks. Both of these run fully clean. So, the "easy" tools can't find it.
3. Following point 1 and 2, no maintainer familiar with the codebase has ever seen leaky behavior. Some of us run a build of Ghostty, working full time in a terminal, for weeks, and memory is stable.
4. Our Discord has ~30K users, and within it, we only have one active user who periodically gets a large memory issue. They haven't been able to narrow this down to any specific reproduction and they aren't familiar enough with the codebase to debug it themselves, unfortunately. They're trying!
To be clear, I 100% believe that there is some kind of leak affecting some specific configuration of users. That's why the discussion is open and we're soliciting input. I even spent about an hour today on the latest feedback (posted earlier today) trying to use that information to narrow it down. No dice, yet.
If anyone has more info, we'd love to find this. :)
This illustrates the difficulty of maintaining a separation between bugs and discussions:
> To be clear, I 100% believe that there is some kind of leak affecting some specific configuration of users
In this case it seems you believe a bug exists, but it isn't sufficiently well-understood and actionable to graduate to the bug tracker.
But the threshold of well-understood and actionable is fuzzy and subjective. Most bugs, in my experience, start with some amount of investigative work, and are actionable in the sense that some concrete steps would further the investigation, but full understanding is not achieved until very late in the game, around the time I am prototyping a fix.
Similarly the line between bug and feature request is often unclear. If the product breaks in specific configuration X, is it a bug, or a request to add support for configuration X?
I find it easier to have a single place for issue discussion at all stages of understanding or actionability, so that we don't have to worry about distinctions like this that feel a bit arbitrary.
Is the distinction arbitrary? It sounded like issues are used for clear, completable jobs for the maintainers. A mysterious bug is not that. The other work you describe is clearly happening, so I'm not seeing a problem with this approach other than its novelty for users. But to me it looks both clearer than the usual "issue soup" on a popular open source project and more effective at using maintainer time, so next time I open-source something I'd be inclined to try it.
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.
In my experience, the remote shell weirdness is usually because the remote shell doesn’t recognise ghostty’s TERM=xterm-ghostty value. Fixed by either copying over a terminfo with it in, or setting TERM=xterm-256color before ssh’ing: https://ghostty.org/docs/help/terminfo
I spotted Ghostty using 20GB+ memory a few days ago on MacOS (according to Activity Monitor). I went through all my tmux sessions, killed everything, it was still 20GB+ so I re-started Ghostty. If I see it happen again, I'll take some notes.
On some level, that's impressive. Any idea of how long Ghostty was alive? Maybe this a new feature where Ghostty stores LLM model parameters in the terminal scrollback history? /s
I have a one bit that might be useful that I learned from debugging/optimizing Emacs.
macOS' Instruments tool only checks for leaks when it can track allocations and it is limited to ~256 stack depth. For recursive calls or very deep stacks (Emacs) some allocations aren't tracked and only after setting malloc history flags [0] I started seeing some results (and leaks).
Another place I'm investigating (for Emacs) is that AppKit lifecycle doesn't actually align with Emacs lifecycle and so leaks are happening on the AppKit and that has ZERO to do with application. Seems that problem manifests mostly on a high end specs (multiple HiDPI displays with high variable refresh rate, powerful chip etc.)
Probably nothing you haven't investigated yet, but it is similar to the ghost (pun intended) I've been looking for.
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Pe...
Regarding point 4: why the user should be familiar with the codebase to investigate it? Shouldn't they create a memory dump and send it to dev team?
The point is to reduce reported issues from non maintainers as close to 0 as possible. This does that.
Is it possible for Ghostty to figure out how much memory its child processes (or tabs) are using? If so maybe it would help to surface this number on or near the tab itself, similar to how Chrome started doing this if you hover over a tab. It seems like many of these stem from people misinterpreting the memory number in Activity Monitor, and maybe having memory numbers on the tabs would help avoid that.
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 clean up for you, but some of those won’t be false positives.
It will, but they will be abbreviated (only total amount shown, not the individual stack traces) unless you ask to show them in full.
Ghostty is written in Zig.
I’m sure they would appreciate a report as it doesn’t seem that it can be reproduced yet
btw, is it me or is there any justification for anyone including a developer to run more than 8GB of RAM for a laptop? I don't see functionality as having changed in the last 15 years.
For me, only Rust compilation necessitates more RAM. But, I assume devs just do RAM heavy dev work on a server over ssh.
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 DAW with a bazillion plugins and samples, anything involving 4k video are all workloads that would struggle running on such a small RAM allowance.
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.
Interesting. I required all my devs to use local VMs for development. We've saved a fair bit on cloud costs.
> We've saved a fair bit on cloud costs
our company just went with the "server in the basement" approach, with every employee having a user account (no VM or docker separation, just normal file permissions). Sure, sounds like the 80s, but it works rearly well. Remote access with wireguard, uptime similar or better than cloud, sharing the same beefy CPUs works well and gives good utilization. Running jobs that need hundreds of GB of RAM isn't an issue as long as you respect other's needs too dont hog the RAM all day. And in amortized costs per employee its dirt cheap. I only wish we had more GPUs.
> Interesting. I required all my devs to use local VMs for development.
It doesn’t work when you’re developing on a large database, since it won’t fit. Database (and data warehouse) development has been held back from modern practices just for this reason.
Current job used to let us run containers locally, but they decided to wrap initially docker, and then podman with "helper" scripts. These broke regularly, and became too much overhead to maintain so we are mandated to do local dev but access a dev k8 cluster to perform any level of testing that is more than unit and requires a db.
A really shame as running local docker/podman for postges was fine when you just ran the commands.
I find this quite surprising! What benefit does your org accrue by mandating that the db instance used for testing is centralised? Where I am, the tests simply assume that there’s a database available on a certain port. docker-compose.yml makes it easy to spin this up for those so inclined. At that stage it’s immaterial whether it’s running natively, or in docker, or forwarded from somewhere else. Our tests stump up all the data they need and tear down the db afterwards. In contrast, I imagine that a dev k8s cluster requires some management and would be a single point of failure.
For many companies, IP isn’t allowed to leave environments controlled by the company, which employee laptops are not.
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.
>But, I assume devs just do RAM heavy dev work on a server over ssh.
Why do you assume that? Its nice to do things locally sometimes. Maybe even while having a browser open. It doesn't take much to go over 8gb.
Browser + 2 vscode + 4 docker container + MS Teams + postman + MongoDB Compass
Sure it is bloated, but it is the stack we have for local development
You asked if there is a justification and then in the same post justified why you need it.
Chrome on my work laptop sits around 20-30GB all day every day.
How much would it take up if there was less RAM available. A web browser with a bunch of tabs open but not active seems like the type of system that can increase RAM usage by caching, and decrease it by swapping (either logically at the application level, or letting the OS actually swap)
~10 projects in Cursor is 25GB on it's own.
I wonder if having less RAM would compel you to read, commit to long term memory, and then close those 80 tabs you have open.
The issue for me is that bookmarks suck. They don't store the state (where I was reading) and they reload the webpage so I might get something else entirely when I come back. They also kinda just disappear from sight.
If instead bookmarks worked like tab saving does, I would be happy to get rid of a few hundred tabs. Have them save the page and state like the tab saving mechanism does. Have some way to remind me of them after a week or month or so.
Combine that with a search function that can search in contents as well as the title, and I'm changing habbits ASAP.
Regarding wanting to preserve the current version of a page: I use Karakeep to archive those pages. I am sure there are other similar solutions such as downloading an offline version, but this works well for me.
I do this mostly for blog posts etc I might not get around to reading for weeks or months from now, and don't want them to disappear in the meantime.
Everything else is either a pinned tab (<5) or a bookmark (themselves shared when necessary on e.g a Slack canvas so the whole team has easy access, not just me).
While browsing the rest of my tabs are transient and don't really grow. I even mostly use private browsing for research, and only bookmark (or otherwise save) pages I deem to be of high quality. I might have a private window with multiple tabs for a given task, but it is quickly reduced to the minimum necessary pages and the the whole private window is thrown away once the initial source material gathering is done. This lets me turn off address bar search engines and instead search only saved history and bookmarks.
I often see colleagues with the same many browser windows of many tabs each open struggling to find what they need, and ponder their methods.
I've started using Karakeep as well, however I don't find its built-in viewer as seamless as a plain browser page. It's also runs afoul of pages which combats bots due to its headless chrome.
Anyway, just strikes me as odd that the browsers have the functionality right there, it's just not used to its full potential.
If I'm doing work than involves three different libraries, I'm not reading and committing to memory the whole documentation for each of those libraries. I might well have a few tabs with some of those libraries' source files too. I can easily end up with tens of tabs open as a form of breadcrumb trail for an issue I'm tracking down.
Then there's all the basic stuff — email and calendar are tabs in my browser, not standalone applications. Ditto the the ticket I'm working on.
I think the real issue is that browsers need to some lightweight "sleep" mechanism that sits somewhere between a live tab and just keeping the source in cache.
I wonder if a good public flogging would compel chrome and web devs to have 80 tabs take up far less than a gigabyte of memory like they should in a world where optimization wasn’t wholesale abandoned under the assumption that hardware improvements would compensate for their laziness and incompetence.
The high memory usage is due to the optimization. Responsiveness, robustness and performance was improved by making each tab independent processes. And that's good. Nobody needs 80 tabs, that's what bookmarks are for.
"that's what bookmarks are for"
And if you are lucky, the content will still be there the next time.
Is there a straightforward way to have one-process-per tab in browsers without using significant amounts (O(n_tabs)) of memory?
There is no justification for that IMHO. The program text only needs to be in memory once. However, each process probably has its own instance of the JS engine, together with the website's heap data and the JIT-compiled code objects. That adds up.
I'd very much like a crash in one tab not to kill other tabs. And having per tab sandboxing would be more secure, no?
[delayed]
They do this stuff.
I’m honestly amazed OP is managing 30 GB regularly. I’d wager it’s a tall tale. It’s sort of perfect troll bait on a forum because you end up with people sounding nuts, defending web browser ram usage, against the common position, that browsers are RAM hogs.
Thats a weird assumption to make.
> But, I assume devs just do RAM heavy dev work on a server over ssh.
This assumption is wrong. I compile stuff directly on my laptop, and so do a lot of other people.
Also, even if nobody ran compilers locally, there is still stuff like rustc, clangd, etc. which take lots of RAM.
Browsers can get quite bloated, especially if one is not in the habit of closing tabs or restarting it from time to time. IDEs, other development tools, and most Electron abominations are also not shy about guzzling memory.
With 32 GB I can run two whole Electron applications! Discord and Slack!
It's a life of luxury, I tell you.
The author says in the first link he only heard it reported twice, which I'm guessing is the latter two links (the two discussions)
Your second link looks like an X user trying to start a flamewar; the rest of the replies are hidden to me.
Seems like the contributors don't feel like it's clear enough yet to make an actionable issue and needs more discussion. Are you a contributor?
It's not clear to me why I'd want to use Ghostty over WezTern or Kitty, TBH. Ghostty is certainly trends on social media, but that's a negative signal for me.
For those who have the issue.
I reported the issue in discussions some time ago, but had no reaction/response.
I was able to reproduce the leak consistently. Finally I've got all the reports done by me, Ghostty sources and Claude Code and tried to fix it.
For the first couple of weeks there were no leaks at all, now it started again but only 1/10 of the times it was before.
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/9786 There are some logs and a Claude Code review md file that might be useful.
Hope it will help someone investigate further.
Personally, I find the distinction between “issues” and “discussions” annoying.
For one, it duplicates the efforts in checking for prior reports. I might try 5–6 sets of keywords, but now I have to do so for 2 separate trackers.
Tickets cannot be moved between trackers, so instead folks resort to duplicating it and moving discussions… which is entirely opaque if you’re following up via email: you won’t get any more notifications and your future replies are silently discarded.
As a maintainer, having two trackers per project never made sense to me, so I’ve disabled discussion everywhere.
This is mostly a criticism of how GitHub implemented this feature, not of the decision taken here.
> I find the distinction between “issues” and “discussions” annoying
The benefit is that all users who just ask for help, assistance, or are unable to install or use the software now have a place to ask.
You shouldn't create an issue just because you get an error when installing, but it might be beneficial to still ask for help.
If it is indeed a bug, then create a ticket, linking to the discussion.
Normally, too many issues are user errors.
At the very least I think what matters here is the process. The same exact process could be implemented via, for example, issue labels. It would not be hard for maintainers to search for issues with label "bug", which only maintainers can assign. There are clear UX tradeoffs between the two approaches.
Why would checking be duplicated? One would need to check only the discussions in this case, since issues will be created from discussions once something is ready to be worked on (as I understood it)
That’s only for non-maintainer submissions. When a maintainer notices a bug or decides on a new feature, they can open an issue for that right away, without prior discussion.
behold the best way to search github issues. Using Google or whatever decent search engine:
Does this actually work? I would think it will be out of date by at least weeks, and I'd be surprised if their crawlers actually iterate through every issue page.
Google checks my site’s site map at least every day. I rarely see anything out of date in their index.
At least for the fairly popular repos I work on, it's only a few hours out of date, at most 1 day.
So if I'm triaging a new issue, often it'll show up in the results as well
@jdx has gone one step further with mise. The issues has been completely disabled. I presume he tracks real issues in another repo. It'd be nice if github could provide first class support for such a workflow.
To me this just shows that the Github issue concept is significantly flowed.
Open source is weird. It’s like everyone on the entire planet is your coworker and you have no real say in their hiring, on boarding, or firing.
I can see why there is trepidation and guard rails around giving them the key to your office planner.
I don’t see how this demonstrates that at all. Issues as a concept seems sound. There is a huge variety of social structures that are built around issues which might make it a good or bad fit
Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
I'm not so sure. I think this sort of discussion mostly falls within the realm of bike shedding. I'll explain why.
There's such a thing as a ticket life cycle. Ticketing flows typically feature a triage/reproduction stage. Just because someone creates an issue that doesn't necessarily mean the issue exists or isn't already tracked somewhere else, or that the ticket has all the necessary and sufficient information to troubleshoot an issue. When a ticket is created, the first step is to have someone look at it and check if there's something to it. This happens even when tickets are created by internal stakeholders, such as QAs.
GitHub supports ticket labels, and the default set already cover these scenarios.
https://docs.github.com/en/issues/using-labels-and-milestone...
To me this discussion sounds like a project decided to update their workflow to move triage out of tickets and into a separate board. That's fine, it's the exact same thing but with a slightly more complex process. But it's the same thing.
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
1. We often say 'should' too easily. The post isn't making such a claim is it? I would shift away from saying 'should' to saying: start somewhere that works for your project, gather feedback and evidence, and adjust thoughtfully. You'll end up in a place that feels authentic.
2. If anything, I would prefer the default be random. Then projects end up being natural experiments. See [1]
3. At a meta level, this reminds me of Brian:
> Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
> Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
> Brian: You're all different!
> Crowd: Yes, we are all different!
> Man in crowd: I'm not...
> Crowd: Shhh!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
Intuitively, it seems like the Correct™ feature to handle the concepts of "issues" and "discussions" would be to have only one place to go to comment on a project.
There doesn't seem to be enough of a separation between the concepts of "issues" and "discussions" to support separating them into two features.
Given that discussions seem more general, it seems like the right path forward would be to have only discussions. Sub-features of issues could be added to discussions.
> This pattern makes it easier for maintainers or contributors to find issues to work on since every issue is ready to be worked on.
How is this not trivially solved via a "ready-to-be-worked-on" tag?
Because I don't want my default view to be "triage." If GitHub allowed default issue views (and reflected that in the issue count in the tabs as well), then maybe. But currently, it doesn't work. I've tried it at large project scale across many (multiple projects with more than 20K stars and millions of downloads).
Compared to that, this system has been a huge success. It has its own problems, but it's directionally better.
How does different count affect search? You can use a bookmark to change the view, and if using bookmarks is too much, ok, but that's not a bold universal reason.
(also, what is "huge success" in methods of organizing issues?)
bookmark: (and if your browser supports shortcuts, it can be as easy to open as remembering to type a single char)
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/issues?q=is%3Aissue%2...
Seems like a pretty huge cost just because you don't want to create a bookmark...
Can't you just set a bookmark with the filters you want?
For one, it might require several rounds of back and forth before its ready to receive the tag, but now the details are spread across several comments instead of neatly at the top
GitHub desperately needs a feature to pin comments in issues or sort by reactions.
Very often in those infamous bugs that has been open for years, having hundreds of ”me too” comments, there are gems with workarounds or reproductions, unfortunately hidden somewhere under 4 iterations of ”click to load 8 more comments”, making it difficult to find. This generates even more ”anyone know how to solve this” spam, further contributing to the difficulty to find the good post.
No, you can always summarize details neatly at the top, you can edit comments, you know?
Yes but the person who is qualified to summarize might not be the person who initiated a discussion.
No again, the person qualified can edit the initial comment.
Hmm didn't realize that repo owners could edit other folks' comments
Don't worry, I'm willing to bet that there's an AI integration in the works for this...
that solution is not trivial because it requires permission for anyone to comment on issues, which invites irrelevant or unhelpful comments or even complaints. the separation allows issues to be limited to developers only, those who actually work to fix the issues.
technically, messages are messages. this approach no more than grouping messages into different forums. it could also all be under discussion with a sub forum for issues, one for features, one for other topics, etc, and then there would need to be a permission system for each sub forum.
so all this does is to create two spheres of access for users and developers. and that's the point.
in the end it's really a matter of taste and preference.
That's not true, you can limit comments to collaborators if you don't like them. Although note that it's something you've made up, comments are not part of the original list of reasons. Moreover, comments aren't limited in the actual issues, so nothing prevents unhelpful comments, leaving your issue unresolved
well that's exactly what they did, limit comments to collaborators. anyone else can comment in the discussion forum.
Well, that's not what they did, did you not read the last sentence of my previous comment (or checked for yourself)?
An non-issue raised as an issue can never be closed, because the person who reported it will just open another one saying "Why did you close my issue without fixing it?" If that user is also raising valid, useful issues then you don't want to just ban them. Consequently your issues list will become unmanageable.
Reporting valid issues does not grant you the right to abuse the issue tracker.
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that banning a user who is making a mistake in one area means you lose the value they provide in another (which might be valid issues, but equally it might be 90% of your revenue or something), so it's not always an obvious decision to just wield the ban hammer every time. Moving discussion of issues before they're created to a separate place helps keep the issue tracker focused on issues that are likely to be addressed.
An additional benefit of that is that a user whose discussion leads to a real issue being created will feel like they're genuinely being listened to. That creates a good customer experience, which is good for your brand's reputation. It's a positive experience. Closing non-issues in the tracker is a negative experience.
How is it not trivially solved by a discussion section? Why is your solution better for someone else's work flow? Why do you feel like you get to impose your way of doing work on an open source project?
Why do you feel like it's ok to make up nonsense about imposing? How can I impose anything on that project? Why break the expected/established workflow of users if the explanation doesn't work? Why are you asking 3 questions without answering 1?
> Why break the expected/established workflow of users
Is it really that hard to open a discussion?
each project has its own workflow. no established workflow is broken. github traditionally imposed a different workflow because initially it didn't even have discussions.
Issues simply don't scale. Using discussions as a filter is a good idea.
If you spend more time closing issues than creating them manually from discussions, the math adds up.
What is the actual difference?
As a maintainers, if you want to be be able to tell real issues from non-issue discussions, you still gave to read them (triage). That's what's taking time.
I don't see how transforming a discussion into an issue is less effort than the other way around. Both are a click.
Github's issues and discussions seem the same feature to me (almost identical UI with different naming).
The only potential benefit I can see is that discussions have a top-level upvote count.
If discussions had a more modern UI with threads or something then the difference might be real. But AFAICT it’s the same set of functionality, so it’s effectively equivalent to a tag.
They sorta do: each comment on a discussion starts a thread you can reply to, unlike on issues where you have to keep quoting each other to track a topic if there’s more than one. It still sucks, especially since long threads are collapsed and thus harder to ctrl-f or link a reply, but it’s something.
> able to tell real issues from non-issue discussions
imo almost all issues are real, including "non-issue" - i think you mean non-bug - "discussions." for example it is meaningful that discussions show a potential documentation feature, and products like "a terminal" are complete when their features are authored and also fully documented or discoverable (so intuitive as to not require documentation).
99% of the audience of github projects are other developers, not non-programmer end users. it is almost always wrong to think of issues as not real, every open source maintainer who gets hung up on wanting a category of issues narrower than the ones needed to make their product succeed winds up delegating their product development to a team of professionals and loses control (for an example that I know well: ComfyUI).
> If you spend more time closing issues than creating them manually from discussions, the math adds up.
The math is even better if you just ignore all issues and close them after two weeks for being stale!
Wish this was /s but it isn't.
As long as it does not affect the metrics of your resume! /s
Why do you say that? Curl (arguably one of the most used open source software in the world) currently has 5 open issues https://github.com/curl/curl/issues
Not sure curl is a good example since it’s already very mature and boring (in a good way)
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.
I always struggle to understand this level of entitlement. No one is forcing you to use any of these projects. The vast majority of the time, drive-by bug reports by users are a complete waste of time because they're either a user error or not described in sufficient detail to debug. In other words, mostly noise, and adding more noise isn't really helpful.
If you want to contribute, a much better way is to work on bugs that are already well defined. There is generally no shortage of known bugs in software, there is however a shortage of people fixing them.
> No one is forcing you to use any of these projects
Unless you only ever work on projects that you have full absolute control over (unlikely if you have a job) then yes they absolutely are.
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.
I think this is exactly the point most people miss. No contribution is better than bad contribution. Most issues people file are bad. I previously worked at a major OSS company and the vast majority of bug reports are just noise. It takes time to sift through them and they add no value, just waste time. If people did less of that, that would be a good outcome, not a bad one. Sure, there's useful reports there sometimes, but it's more rare than you'd think. On top of that, many of those are dupes of issues we've already found and filed, just haven't had time to fix yet.
Maintainers did a bunch of useful work for them and they refuse to report issues the way maintainers find the most useful, because it's a burden to help maintainers do all their free work.
How is “submit your issue to this nearly identical discussion tool in the same web app” a burden?
Maybe you should become part of the project if you find bugs regularly ;-)
How is opening a discussion more friction than opening an issue?
In the python projects in question, unlike with the Ghostty project, there isn't an "issue triage" discussion category that maintainers look at. They have just discussions, and everything is treated as such. So when you raise an issue in discussions, it either goes to the void or people come in looking for a discussion of alternative approaches to do what you're trying to do that don't hit the bug, rather than treating the bug as a bug.
At a high level - the audience of discussions is the community at large, the audience of issues is the maintainers.
What Ghostty is doing with a dedicated category for issue triage should work just fine, despite it being an additional hop.
The arrogance in in users like yourself who think they know better than the project owners how to run their issue tracker. This is just a variation. It’s not a barrier, it’s an attempt to improve the quality of the issues that are filed in a way that’s more useful for everyone.
To be clear, I am not telling Mitchell how to run his project. I am providing info on how a change like this can be perceived from the other side. Do with the information what you will.
To be fair it also stinks of arrogance to think that you have the skills to know "what is clearly a bug" 100% of the time in projects you don't own.
> to know "what is clearly a bug" 100% of the time in projects you don't own
Owning a project is counter-productive for QA. If it’s your project, you know where to click and where to not click.
OTOH, you don’t need to know anything about a project to conclude that a crash with access violation, or hang with 100% CPU usage, are clearly bugs.
>90% of the time it's usually pretty clear if something is a bug, especially if there's log files full of errors.
Fwiw, you might have misinterpreted the idiomatic expression "all the time" as meaning "100% of the time". It just means "often" or "commonly". The parent is just saying they often find bugs, they know they're bugs through experience.
Of course anyone can make a mistake. Maybe you prefer the 'discussions' route because it's only seemingly then possible for a projects own devs to make a mistake in creating an issue.
Your feedback is very important to us. Please fill out this long ass form and provide mountains of telemetry as barriers to participation.
I'm a fan of this. My own projects on GitHub have an action[1] which autocloses and autolocks any opened issues until they have been reviewed and accepted by me, and I only consider feature requests from sponsors.
The real miss here is that there isn't a way on GitHub to only allow maintainers to create issues, instead we are left with these subpar workarounds.
[1]: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi/blob/master/.github/workf...
I agree with the general philosophy about user submissions. Browsing closed discussions looks a lot like browsing closed issues. So I'm not sure that the policy is successfully turning bug reports into discussions. But it's at least keeping Issues free from noise for contributors. Github could do more to nudge users into approaching Discussions differently. https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions?discussio...
The point is the opposite, AFAICT. Any user complaint starts as a discussion. If an actionable bug report results from it, it goes to the tracker, which serves as list of problems to work on. A lot of discussions do not end this way, even though they may solve a user's issue anyway, e.g. by providing advice and reference.
Definitely discussing things could also happen in the issue tracker, and some <Actionable> tag could be used to mark issues that are ready to work upon. But I suspect that Discussions are better suited for, well, discussions, while the facilities of the issue tracker can then be used by maintainers / contributors.
I find this separation pretty smart.
Agreed. IMO, it makes sense to have a way to triage possible issues, confirm that they are, in fact, legitimate, and then create issue records to reflect them. As long as users have a way to report anomalous behavior, then, as you say, it’s really no different than using tags on issues. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
I've seen other projects that do this, and it makes a lot of sense. A discussion forum is a good place to start. It seems though that many projects don't have the Github "discussions" activated.
People complain about Github not allowing you to turn off issues and pull requests entirely, but I've always seen it as a positive. It means the truth about code quality, potential caveats, and better forked revisions can disseminate freely even when the author disappears. It becomes a spamfest at times, but is still probably a net positive for the ecosystem.
That being said, as long as you still have the discussion tab, auto-deleting all issues by default is not a big deal.
This makes perfect sense and is so much better than getting a flood of half-baked "issues" and then closing them automatically with a bot for "inactivity".
It's a good idea to reserve issues for well-defined, actionable stuff.
IRL every dev issue tracker needs a front-end bozo filter to handle the low-hanging fruit and the misunderstandings and the failures to RTFM and the cases of PEBCAK.
We've been doing this on the Renovate project for years, and it's been hugely useful - we get a lot of reports that users feel to be a bug, but are often misunderstanding or expectations about behaviour that isn't necessarily true.
There are absolutely bugs that get reported - either in functionality or documentation - but by requiring a level of triage in Discussions before promoting them up to Issues is a great way to keep things more actionable for folks wanting to come in and contribute fixes that the maintainers do agree are needing a fix
How about using issue types? https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-is...
So how do the maintainers and contributers know when a Discussion details a bug ready to be worked on? Seems like, as with issues, they'll still be sorting though them and looking for the most active ones?
Edit: after reading the contributors doc, it seems that feature requests are discussions which should help. Unreproducible bugs, too; although I would wager that a lot of users believe they can reproduce bugs but in fact can't consistently, or believe their feature request is a bug.
It seems this approach is better but still requires someone to sort through the discussions before they're moved to the cleaner issues pile.
One big pile with filters, or a chaotic pile and a clean pile. That seems to be the end result of this, unless I'm missing something.
I think this is ok. They attempt to add a barrier here, with the attempt to increase the quality of the issue suggested. This may not be the only goal; one may be to have fewer issues raised in total. But there may be several advantages, as well as disadvantages with that approach - it is simply a trade-off.
In particular when I maintain an open source project, I have a lack of time in general so I need to move quickly. I actually don't mind issue discussions on my project, but people can not expect me to invest a lot of time into managing all of those; whether this is a discussion or an issue directly, is not so important, but I know that some project owners don't like open issues that remain open for years. It is kind of a difference in philosophy here.
One trade off is that I am not so likely to get involved in such a project. I may start a discussion, but in general I am very chaotic and may never follow up on discussions I started, simply due to lack of time, too many things to do, forgetting too much too (I do keep notes locally, but these files just keep on growing!).
> But there may be several advantages, as well as disadvantages with that approach - it is simply a trade-off.
Above, the word _simply_ conveys a lot of meaning. This sentence, when considered alone, might be seen to imply that all trade-offs are in a sense, ok, because they are all sort of a matter of taste. This doesn't mesh with my understanding of the world. I frame it this way: for a given objective, some trade-offs are better than others.
Put in reverse, when I see a project making certain trade-offs, I don't assume those trade-offs are in service of some clearly defined objective. Often I see people and organizations mired in trade-offs that are inertial and/or unconsidered.
There is another interesting angle to consider: framing as a question it would be: «When building a product or running a project, how do I make sense of a huge variety of trade-offs?» For that, exploring the Pareto frontier can be a useful method (see [1]) because it reduces the combinatorial explosion.
In the case of Ghostty, I think its values are indeed better served by this GitHub process (which designates an issue as a clear actionable task derived from a discussion).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_front
Is this fundamentally different than just using tags on issues to separate ready to work on things from initial user submissions?
I feel like "technically, no" but "practically, yes".
Somehow the distinction of just adding a tag / using filters doesn't communicate the cultural/process distinction in the same way.
One difference is that if I submit an issue, and it requires some back and forth to figure out the actionable improvement, then suddenly the issue is very noisy.
Whereas if it goes via a Discussion first, the back and forth happens elsewhere.
Arguably an separate issue could still do this, but it being a discussion sets the expectation better.
This kind of thing happens in Jira or any company's internal bug tracker, and GitHub Issues is not any different. If you want a certain kind of "hygiene", you can always do that in the existing system instead of inventing a whole different solution.
> Arguably an separate issue could still do this, but it being a discussion sets the expectation better.
People do that all the time in bug trackers.
As someone wearing the post-sales support hat for a non-OSS product, I appreciate use of "ready" tags in Jira. Unlike OSS, our engineers prioritize KPIs to be compensated for their work, and so we must find a way to track the triage discussions within Jira. In a significant way, Jira is solid proof that work happened, even if no actual code was pushed into the repo. If the support team has an unconfirmed bug that requires a technical deep dive, then the "non-ready" Jiras seem like a good fit. I'm open to a better way of doing this and would like to learn more about alternatives, but for now, this is how the teams engage.
Yes. Even for casual users looking for help, it’s nice to know that the “issues” tab is just real issues and not random, duplicated complaints and questions. Especially on a project like this that attracts a lot of attention and is highly sensitive to the user’s very specific environment. Most issues are going to not be bugs, or even something the maintainers can work on directly. Instead of trying to cram everything into Issues, why not use the underutilized Discussions tool? Now the Issues list is much more useful as an active tracker of workable items, and as a historical reference of relatively deduped problems.
So they are using Issues as a project board to track and manage ongoing work items, but Projects is built for exactly that. May be better in the long term to move project management to Projects and let people file bugs with as little friction as possible.
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.
I think this is the natural process, but how you implement it doesn't matter. A lot of GitHub repos use "unlabelled issue" === "a discussion thread". The benefit is that instead of having to search two separate systems, you can just search one (if you can have an aggregate search over both then it really doesn't matter), these two implementations are isomorphic
I don't find them equivalent or isomorphic. You are rolling a generic discussion forum and a work planner/tracker into one. In my experience, such two-in-one solutions rarely work well. Discussions and Issues tend to interfere with each others' UX significantly when there is no explicit boundary. And it looks like Mitchell Hashimoto and a lot of others feel the same way.
2025-12-30 https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2006114026191769924
"Slop drives me crazy and it feels like 95+% of bug reports, but man, AI code analysis is getting really good. There are users out there reporting bugs that don't know ANYTHING about our stack, but are great AI drivers and producing some high quality issue reports.
This person (linked below) was experiencing Ghostty crashes and took it upon themselves to use AI to write a python script that can decode our crash files, match them up with our dsym files, and analyze the codebase for attempting to find the root cause, and extracted that into an Agent Skill.
They then came into Discord, warned us they don't know Zig at all, don't know macOS dev at all, don't know terminals at all, and that they used AI, but that they thought critically about the issues and believed they were real and asked if we'd accept them. I took a look at one, was impressed, and said send them all.
This fixed 4 real crashing cases that I was able to manually verify and write a fix for from someone who -- on paper -- had no fucking clue what they were talking about. And yet, they drove an AI with expert skill.
I want to call out that in addition to driving AI with expert skill, they navigated the terrain with expert skill as well. They didn't just toss slop up on our repo. They came to Discord as a human, reached out as a human, and talked to other humans about what they've done. They were careful and thoughtful about the process.
People like this give me hope for what is possible. But it really, really depends on high quality people like this. Most today -- to continue the analogy -- are unfortunately driving like a teenager who has only driven toy go-karts."
"Examples: https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions?discussio... "
This makes sense.
Personally, I use GH Issues for my own work, but there’s very few issues, so it’s not a burden. I’m a non-fan of JIRA.
I have seen GH Issues turn into Reddit-like flamefests (every now and then, someone posts a particularly entertaining one, here). Not my idea of productive work.
“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.
Shouldn't this be a discussion?
A lot of bugs where I work have the same pattern: one person writes up either what they found to be broken or what they couldn’t do due to a missing feature, then a shadow task is created that describes the bug and what needs to be changed to fix or implement it. I’ve never had problem with both the report and the work-tracker being in the same place but I can see why GitHub calling the product “Issues” might not have been a great name.
Seems great to me. Perhaps GitHub should look into incorporating this into the UX somehow? So many projects are issues linking to other issues, I would love to see other projects adopt this to make github task tracking more usable.
Why would GitHub do that just because one project thinks is a good idea, especially when there is absolutely no concrete evidence that this is any more effective or efficient than using issues? All that we have is project maintainers' own beliefs. Bear in mind that these things can be studied and measured quantitatively.
The current "issues" system works fine for most small-medium projects and even many large projects. Any project who looks for a more "serious" solution would have its own Jira/bug tracker system, and you can find plenty of them.
If only you could have project boards with their different views be the top level tabs instead of just open issues and pull requests...
The motivation for that is very convincing, yet a quick glance at Issues tab makes me understand it without any additional explanation.
It looks great. As mentally easy to process as Jira tasks. Or even better, cause it was written by a good "PM", which is not always a case commercially.
Hmm. I like it.
When I have a clear "Issue" which I've already researched, it's a bit of friction, but it doesn't seem like any more work to dump exactly the same text into a Discussion... and yea. Issues becoming a dumping ground is a real issue. This seems like a reasonable strategy / experiment.
This is ironically described in an open issue...
Ironic, yet practical. This is so that the issue can be 'pinned' to the top of the Issues page, making it more visible:
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/issues
Yes this is the identical pattern we strive for at SQLAlchemy.
However github has no option to close issues to contributors only.
These folks do what we do, they have an issue template called "do not use this". big whoop. People blow through those all day so we're clicking on "convert to discussion" all day.
Github please add this feature!
Great approach. It can also prevent negative energy leak to passionate maintainers.
I wonder if just tagging and filtering automatically via a GitHub setting which currently doesn’t exist could serve the same purpose
Why not use labels for this? Discussions seem to be a bad use case for bug reports, but I can understand using it for feature request
How is the technical block done? Just a bot closing issues or is there some github setting for this?
I didn’t know GitHub had discussions. This is great
Having maintained a relatively popular open source project for a bunch of years, I love this idea. Totally stealing this for future projects.
I have never worked on projects that give non members write access to our bug tracker.
This includes both our open source project not giving the public access. And our entirely closed source internal projects not giving other developers within the company write access.
What I often do on ZeroFS [0] is to convert issues to discussions, it's a one click operation on github and helps reduce the noise for ill-defined issues.
[0] https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS
Personally, I dig it! Selected parts from linked page:
"""Unlike some other projects, Ghostty does not use the issue tracker for discussion or feature requests. Instead, we use GitHub discussions for that. Once a discussion reaches a point where a well-understood, actionable item is identified, it is moved to the issue tracker. This pattern makes it easier for maintainers or contributors to find issues to work on since every issue is ready to be worked on.
This approach is based on years of experience maintaining open source projects and observing that 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves.[...]"""
Kind of an unstructured Basecamp ShapeUp where the "ask" has been shaped already through requirements gathering and bets made.
I proposed something similar for bitcoin: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3ph...
Just do the Apple / Google / MS model where anyone can freely open tickets, and then those bugs are never seen or addressed by any developers. Essentially use the bug tracker as a honeypot to keep the users happy
This is much better than the stale-bot bs irreversibly closing perfectly valid issues just because the reporter have not replied for couple weeks.
The stale-bots are even worse than that. The reporter may have responded quickly, and the bug may be acknowledged as real. But if there's simply no activity in the issue for the month following, it will be closed.
> 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 can believe this. I think it depends on the project, but there are certainly some with very high false positives. Maybe that's indicative of a confusing app, I don't know.
I think the main point is that all issues are ready for contributors to work on
>> 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.
This is a textbook example of being uncharitable. Framing matters a lot! If you frame something in an uncharitable way, you are likely to "lock in" that view and discount other ones. Mitchell is not saying «users are wrong to give feedback», he is merely saying «the usual conventions are not ideal for this project». Don't confuse the two.
It is clear to me that Mitchell is giving his answer to this question: «what process gives the best results for this OSS project?». He has adjusted the feedback process in a way that he thinks will give better results. This is a consequentialist framing of how to best serve the users of Ghostty, which I think is a useful lens.
Those modern terminal projects have weird defaults and quirky behaviors just to be different.
So to me it's easy to believe that a user expects something to work a certain way, does minimal or no research about it, and go directly to report a bug when in reality it's intented behavior.
Sure, issues for tasks and discussions for conversations.
And then there are developers who idly complain about normal participation on the work of issues and coordination of testing and feedback because it sends them a notification that they turned on. Unconstructive bitching drives users and collaborators away. They could solve their notification problem rather than impose a burden and emotional bullshit on everyone else.
This is a good AI application - something which accepts user problem reports and tries to group them together. Maybe even reproducing the bug in a sandbox if the description is good enough. Engaging with the complainant to get more info.
This could be useful if not used for enshittification, where you have to get past the chatbot to reach anybody useful.
(2014)
It's actually (2024)
> 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves.
Who does this project actually serve? The "users", or someone else?
If I'm getting overwhelmed with hundreds of issues per week about some confusion around installation or use, I think those issues are completely justified. Something should probably be fixed if the happy path is this obscure. Pushing this reality into another bucket is not the solution for me.
As an OSS maintainer myself, while the amount of tickets about a specific topic _might_ be loosely related to the quality of the docs/installation/etc, this hasn't been true in my observations.
It's one of those explanations that sound very plausible on paper, but if you see real world issues it just doesn't happen, users will ask questions that are clearly explained in the first paragraph of the readme, en masse.
It serves the open source maintainers, who enjoy working on it.
Did you also read the part about using Discussions instead? It’s not that users are not allowed to voice feedback, make request, or ask questions. They should just do so in a different place.
> Any Discussion which clearly identifies a problem in Ghostty and can be confirmed or reproduced will be converted to an Issue by a maintainer