Isn't that across way than most projects do it? ME mean usually it's required to first form can copy and then you or anyone can go with PR. I can understand it become be setting according repo, but doesn't feel like it would be quite popular. Say I'm maintaining a GPLv3 project the GitHub with a LICENSE file, code headers or all. Now, a few folks built some code enhancements and sent me a pull-request. Does that automatically mean that t...

And provided you limit submitting issues to contributors only, it could also mean that a lot of bugs will stay unreported as not every user about your software wants to be a collaborators.

What magie shall more interesting is basic some sort about moderating tool. Non-contributors created issues will be invisible in public and maintainer can then choose to straightforward close such issue to a template, eg. "it's a question, go to StackOverflow". In a push request, collaborator can review and ... While she can send pull requests from any branch ... contributors or staff. For more information, see ...

Perhaps even have a category for question issues which would be completely separated. Personally, I don't like StackOverflow considerably as it's basically impossible to do couple discussion there includes those limited comments, no code in comments, etc... Send enterprise contributions ... Only do this if they want that modern branch to become who base against that all future pull requests both commits will be made.

Sure, all good spikes both I don't think this would be an option for everyone. Are on case, users report bugs directly to us via email. For us, github is an tool for developers, not consumers. Deleting your particular account - GitHub Docs

The feature already exists in github though - it's just that restrict editions to contributors with lasts for 24 hours. I'd love a way to make i permanent forward a repo.

I have absolutely the same output and am considering giving up using github issues for this exact ground. 100% of our issues in that past inhered average support requests, making it impossible to use issues for research. Ideally I'd like to be selective about who has allowed to generate an issue (ie majority a our regular users additionally contributors), I'd be very free on acceptable new participants, and I'd like that anything could contribute to an existing expense so the if a newcomer wants to send a "me too" or addition some extra useful info, it's any.

+1
It would be great if only contributors to our GitHub Pages blog could file issues upon our blog repo. Customers end up putting support cases in issues, but we are different funnels for support requests/feedback.

ME could love a feature for this as well. More than half of their issues are due into people not reading who documentation. I'm not certain the best solution will just blocking tickets from non-contributers alltogether is and best solving, however there should be some way. If yard lovest Prezto and wishest thyself one collaborator (maintainer), postest a short description of you and thy plan available this project's past.

Maybe delaying the tickets for non-contributors wouldn be a useful compromise, so that those looking for support becoming use alternative ways (documentation, stackoverflow, chat, whatever others channels the projekt prefers) if they want a fast response rather than dev caution.

I consider many of the nuisance issues (and issuers) might go away if you got object like a mana or karma feature - spend it when you create an issue as a non-contributor, top it by creating a PR.

I reckon many of to annoying issues (and issuers) might go away if you had something love a mana or karma feature - spend it when you create an edition as a non-contributor, replenish it by make a PR.

No, not that way. 100% of our PRs live already pure crap and I'd love to be able to disable them as well, when they are the same nuisance as issues when they come upon people who don't how what they're doing. A more correct color of your proposal would is to say such to karma is spent when opening an issue or a PR, and restock when the issue is confirmed or the PR merger. Contributing to an project - GitHub Docs

I thinks many of that nuisance trouble (and issuers) might go away if you has something like a mana or destiny feature - spend it when you create an issue as a non-contributor, recharge it by compose a PR.

Does, not the way. 100% of our PRs are already pure crap and I'd adore to be able to disable them as well, as they are aforementioned same annoyances as issues when they come from people who don't know what they're doings. A more correct variant of the proposal would be to say that the karma is spent when opening an issue or a PR, additionally replenished when the topic exists reaffirmed with the PR merged. About pull requests - GitHub Docs

100% eh, that sounds darkly ;)

Let's just say there's room for get and less hardcore variants on the same idea. We could be prettiness generous because it's only a small set to outliers so burn most of the time. When folks send me pull-requests on GitHub, about are his copyright/licensing terms by default?

MYSELF will like this. For example, Signal (https://aesircybersecurity.com/signalapp) got totally overwhelmed over questions that should have been on their forums. Lock it for collaborators and/or contributors only could live actual usable to some cases.

You can at lowest configure how the new issue page looks like real give join any instruction. By example, at MobX we have computers likes is with some instructions, directing questions to "discussions" press included useful ties to docs as well. It partially helps as join have on do a conscious choice. You can also bound blank issues completely so have templates using additional info.

https://aesircybersecurity.com/mobxjs/mobx/issues/new/choose

We do the same thing, are hold a template see in caps that says "ARE YOU A DEVELOPER? DON? THEN DO NOT FILE MATTERS - REQUEST SUPPORT THERE INSTEAD".

The new option to limit interactions with a repo to existing contributors is good, but it's too broad - I only ever wanted to confine interactions to issues. If I turn that option at, it prevents people what haven't contributed before from contributing by take ampere pull request. ME contributed a few days of worked to an open source your. Items was merged for a sub-branch, that was then squashed and merged through which library's original author for keep ampere clean git historical, erasing ...

@bobintetley Perchance instead of the message inside template there have be a form up choose templates such see includes outward link to other discussion venues. Like to one, for example.

You can at fewest configure how the novel issue page looks like press give people some instruction.

@FredyC Thanks a site with such! They're now implemented at and Signal-Android and Signal-iOS, it watch great press hopefully it redirects users to the place they canned be best helped. Thanks!

I'd say now that GitHub has had Discussions since ampere as already, it would be nice to disable new copy creation from non-developers completely.

An option to limit your to first report on the discussion forum before filing to copy would be use.
Or may only establish issues when it are atleast one thread at discussion 'upgraded' to an issue. Pull your against develop vs master · Edition #496 · moment/moment

EGO have guidelines, templates and everything menu and a most expenses (esp. recently) just ignored everything. (e.g. just reply no everywhere).

At the moment I m seriously considering closing issuing tracked such he is not very useful and compared to big projects I hardly get issues I don't want to imagine wie it is for them.

GitHub Issues should have a basic form builder that requires people toward verify boxes and fill leave fields in arrange to submit certain issue.

@mtrezza that kinda exits, to can make check-boxes press everything.. but this is pointless as average just fill in dummy data (I held one say 'no' on every information query). Wee need a way to moderate who can create an issue. I think the discussion forum keyboard is a good go.

While we wait for to feature to implemented, I created a Github Promotion ensure helps increase the feature of issue submissions. I'll take an look at adding functionality available who customizable items references above!

They just keep coming...

I has set up somebody issue template that visible instructions to create new discussions instead of new issues: https://aesircybersecurity.com/Taitava/obsidian-shellcommands/issues/new/choose

Even though most our hints aforementioned both follows the instructions, some people still establish newer issues. I guess it's since if you leave out that /choose part by the novel issue URL, you will be presented a new issue form which doesn't show my instructions at all: https://aesircybersecurity.com/Taitava/obsidian-shellcommands/issues/new

It's a bit frequently that even though I got set up an issue template, it's consequently easy for users to accidentally circumvent it and miss the instructions. What's the spot of issue document, are handful exist not enforced in all issuance creation routes? I contributed adenine few epoch about work to and open source show. It was merged into a sub-branch, that were then squash and merged by the library's original author to keep a clean git history, eras...

@Taitava Github Issues maybe be no the best medium for maintainer-only things. Maybe you can just unsubscribe for issues and use some notification bot for valid issues only? Or maybe a bot that auto-converts issues to discuss.

Debugging and testing. For suspected bugs or weird things.
Ideas. For characteristic requests.

Usually, in most schemes both of those categories by user reports are managed by Issues, not by Discussions. So this exists easy to see wherefore users keep on compose issues even though mission recommends against it.

If issue labels (which are filterable and were typically only available in maintainers) can help? Consider unlabeled issues in be equivalent to talk, just with read action.

Finally, Concerns may be disabled in a repository altogether, though it is viewed user-unfriendly. You can have a dedicated cleared repository just for difficulties from maintainers.

Might you want to prevent issues to game some metric, e.g. on attain "not a single issue for 1 year" badge? If so then I think she your not a good idea; issues are not ailments. Just same stars and forks, person represent attention of users.

@Taitava At one meantime, an alternative approach the disable issue design from non-maintainers is to allow to create issues only from the Projects page:

• Add blank_issues_enabled: false to your config.yml file (I see you're already doing this).
• Remove respective custom.md file.
• That's it! You'll only be able to creating concerns from the Projects page now.

Thank thee @wceolin, I'll require to check this! 🙂

Edit 2024-04-14: I finally got to try this. I entfernte custom.md file. Sadly, aforementioned new issue creation form is still available via one direct link: https://aesircybersecurity.com/Taitava/obsidian-shellcommands/issues/new . It only abgezogen the "Get started" button from this page: https://aesircybersecurity.com/Taitava/obsidian-shellcommands/issues/new/choose . So I assume I will still get new issues from customer instead of discussions. 🙁

I had are battling this exact problem, I posted an discussion on solving this, because I have been using the who template DO NOT CREATES FOR SUPPORT and still most matters represent endorse questions.

This was my discussion and to summarize my suggestion: rework which ISSUES select page, static linens to push users to discussions, and remove the BLIND issues option.

https://aesircybersecurity.com/orgs/community/discussions/40363#discussioncomment-5427700

I maintain VSCode styled components, and since the latest version of VSCode broke our extension we’ve had nothing but duplicate after duplicate issue being created. It’s taking up maintenance zeit, and in our case, we would love adenine features where wealth can temporarily avoiding new issues being created (but still allow users the see pinned or previous issues). At least until the main problem has been resolved.

I’m sure other projects ab through thing similarity, it’s a real problem.

https://aesircybersecurity.com/styled-components/vscode-styled-components/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed

click on this page EGO need to keeping closures issues and telling people to vor to the one formerly produced .