Delete / remove an issue completely. #253
Comments
|
Seconded, it would be an useful feature. |
|
This limitation provides no way to deal with abuse/spam except to edit everything every time. It's really not okay and makes me have to disable github issues entirely. At that point I begin to question why the repo is on github if I am going to have to use a different ticket system to get around this. |
|
+1 |
|
it's kind of crazy that this is not possible. might have to look at another ticket system? |
Since repo owners or collaborators can already edit another user's comment (and even delete), I don't see how this could affect the decision. |
|
+1 |
|
+1, lack of ability to delete issue has contributed to my decision to look elsewhere |
|
👍 |
|
my private personal info almost showed up on Issues by accident through faulty automated email hooks.. gave me the chills when I realized that if that happened, I would never be able to delete it except by flooding staff with desperate requests. |
|
+1 |
6 similar comments
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+10086 |
|
+12315 |
|
+1 |
|
I guess I join the line +1 |
|
👍 |
|
+1, really need this feature! |
|
+1 |
|
+1024 |
|
+1 |
|
+1337 |
|
Please allow us to delete issues!! +1 |
|
Please allow use to delete github +1 |
Github "owns" your code too.
Why? Thats a way to lock the freedom of speech and an opensource related conversations? Seriosly? Your words smells 💩 |
|
@nikitasius You're welcome to start your own platform on which you can speak as much as you want 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 |
|
@jbruchon Before I continue this discussion: I don't know why you feel so offended, but I'm really just trying to have a discussion.
I could say the same thing to you. ;) And let me say this again (you do read my comments before you answer, I hope). I am not saying that you shouldn't be able to delete any issues. Obviously I am not against deleting issues that leak your personal information. Why would I? I thought I made it quite clear that there is logical thinking behind my opinions.
Do you own GitHub? -> No. -> It's not your place. |
|
@jbruchon Are you trying to prove/say something with your aggressive disliking? If you have to keep placing dislikes then at least provide some value to the discussion. Or is it too embarrassing now? (No offense) It just comes off as rude to dislike everyone who doesn't agree with you. |
@ jbruch:hankey:n |
|
In response to my own comment, #253 (comment), I ended up writing a script using the GitHub API to automatically walk over all PRs, all their comments, all their code comments and systematically delete all of them, while also changing title and body of the initial PR message to empty strings or one single letter. Basically I achieved a total cleaning of my repo's old PRs even though this "feature" was never "technically" there. |
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
No one had asked for the feature before. It has been added as requested by the users. You want it removed. When it wasn't offered in the first place, it was different. Now that it's been requested and implemented, taking it away or neutering it through "archival" sends signals about the path Github is taking with regard to how it works with its users. Patreon, an established and very prominent market leader in subscription-based funding, sent such a signal to its user base by banning a user purely on the basis of their political speech and the company is now in a financial death spiral from users bailing out to alternative platforms. Github sending a similarly distasteful signal can easily result in a similar exodus. Github itself only leads its market due to a series of bad decisions by SourceForge resulting in the user base bailing out to Github. What I am warning of is quite plausible. Github knows this, but that doesn't make them immune to making a foolish mistake.
Well, I think you're a doody-head too, sir. You're no longer invited to my birthday party.
This makes no sense. You have no shortage of disclosure methods in the event of a security flaw: write your own blog post, submit an article to tech publications, fork the project and add the issue to your fork's issue tracker, or stop whining and go open a CVE for the security issue and give it undeniable global attention that the maker can't delete their way out of. It's not like the repo owner deleting an issue tracker item deletes the existence of the issue.
No, I don't. Neither do I own my apartment or house when I rent it, or my car when it's under financing and has a lien on it, yet I still "own" it insofar as the rights of an owner are conferred to a lessee by both the law and the contract we signed. The person renting a space has ownership rights over that space. While Github is certainly a private corporation with total control over their platform and legal rights such as that of tenancy don't apply, both the philosophy behind such laws and the rights conferred by other legal provisions certainly do. My project is my project, not yours. Github has the right to tell me what I can do on their site, but they don't have the right to breach the integrity of my work, and the law in most jurisdictions explicitly says so; see moral rights in copyright law for more information. That's why not only can I delete everything and leave, but Github is legally required to enable me to do so. Beyond what the law forces Github to do or not do, the philosophies of individual free speech and individual private property rights are where the regulatory foundation begins. Code is both speech and property. My code = my speech and my property. You have no rights over it that I don't choose to give to you. If I activate an issue tracker or a pull request system on my projects, I do so to give you the ability to participate, but it remains my project and I must have the ability to reject your participation at any time and in any amount that I choose. The same applies to your projects and my participation in them. If I cannot moderate my own projects then they're simply not my projects in the first place, and I'll gladly see Github burn to the ground if they move in a regressive direction such as stripping control from project owners over their own projects.
I know this, and I know that Github will no longer be a project hosting option for me if they do so. Plenty of other platforms exist and Github isn't even remotely unique; they're only important because they're the biggest player in the open source project hosting market at this time. I'll be happy to do my part to change that if they move in such a regressive direction.
Yes, and you took the bait. Congrats.
I was on mobile. I didn't have time. Scroll up and count the words in this post and you'll understand. Also, I can't change a mind that doesn't want to change, so the only value in responding to you is in nudging others who happen to read the thread in the right direction, which is a thankless endeavor with no feedback mechanism.
I'm not embarrassed, and I see no reason I should be. Do you see a reason I should be, or do you want me to feel embarrassed? In any case, all this chatter about me personally instead of what I've said boils down to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I am not concerned with your personal evaluation of my politeness. You won't ever see me policing the politeness of others because in any remotely rational discussion it ultimately doesn't matter. Politeness and accusations of impoliteness are all too often used as a red herring and fits into https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
0/10 troll bro Edited to add: > @nikitasius said: Github "owns" your code too. Well, yeah, sure, except you didn't read your own damned link. Some salient quotes from the section you linked to and presumably read:
Github's Terms of Service clearly carve out the rights required for Github to legally continue offering up the Github platform and nothing more. It is narrowly tailored and much less onerous than most social media Terms of Service documents which tend to force unlimited perpetual non-compensated non-exclusive copyright licensing terms upon the user. Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: next time you try to drop a bomb of your smarts on someone, you may want to read the document before dumping your links and celebrating too early. |
I'm sorry, but I honestly can't make sense of your reaction. I pointed out that you appear to be offended and that your emoji-nonsense is weird. And I literally meant that and only that. (No offense)
I understand your stance, but there is no way you can convince me without a good study or some statistical evidence. Just like you think that
I don't want to argue about this, I just want to say, that this is a very questionable thing to say in my opinion because you can neither prove nor disprove it.
I don't see your point. If you say that this doesn't make any sense then I could argue the same way that being able to censor your GitHub page doesn't make sense simply because people can still e.g. leak your information on other platforms.
The key difference being that you're entitled to a ton of rights when you rent a house while having a GitHub page doesn't really entitle you to anything. You simply cannot compare the two in my opinion.
Again, I can make no sense of what you are saying.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean that this person's mind is not willing to change.
How about letting other people read and shape their own opinions without ... well ... manipulation?
Make an educated guess.
I'm not asking you to be overly polite, I'm asking you not to be rude or act in a way that has a high potential to be interpreted as such. |
None of which is relevant to deleting content in repos on Github. Perhaps you missed the links that point out the logical fallacies.
You're playing the "nothing is true without scientific studies" card? Really? This isn't Wikipedia, this is the real world! Not everything about the human condition has a bunch of science behind it; in fact, a lot of the science that existed for decades regarding major issues affecting millions of people has been wrong, such as the demonization of saturated fat in the American diet.
Why not? Okay, Github isn't a payment processor, but that's not really relevant because (just like Patreon) they're a big company with millions of users that wants to keep those users. The difference between Patreon and Github is that the latter hasn't made a move which alienates their core user base enough to make the risks greater than the benefits conferred by the platform, but I never said that they had. They added controversial and politically charged Code of Conduct stuff to the site but made it a suggestion rather than a requirement, alleviating those concerns. They banned a satirical repo called C Plus Equality and it didn't go over so well, but it didn't inspire a mass exodus because most users aren't on Github to deal in political satire anyway (as one of those thread posters said, Github is about getting work done, not humor) and probably didn't notice that the C+= drama even happened. Those actions by Github were controversial but also didn't bother most of the user base, and I'm here despite these things because they didn't affect the scope of anything I'm doing here and I don't have to worry about any of it affecting me in the future. Github is obviously sensitive to its user base despite having some amount of political bias in the way it runs things. That's a good thing because the users are the only thing that makes Github continue to thrive as a multi-million dollar global corporation and a central hub for open source software. If Github starts to move in the direction of retracting user freedom to manage and moderate their repositories, that will indicate to the users that they're no longer sensitive to the user base. This issue is not some minor thing like adding completely optional political side-channel attacks for projects to adopt, or banning a satirical project that takes a stab at political issues in a way that offends Github's staff but also sort of violates the spirit of the website. Half of the site won't leave overnight, sure, but depending on what happens afterward, it could easily end up being Github's "Patreon moment," especially if 4chan shows up with a bunch of clue-by-fours and takes maximum advantage of the publicly announced no-deletion policy to troll the ever-loving shit out of the site and illustrate why neutering repo owner moderation capabilities is stupid.
No, you're not dodging the argument, you're outright admitting that you refuse to accept any sort of argumentation that isn't backed by studies which is a gross demonstration of willful ignorance. You showed up to a philosophical debate demanding studies and statistics. That's silly! Would you need studies and statistics to believe my assertion that it hurts you if I slap you in the face with a large trout? Of course not! The assertion you're attacking boils down to "in the past, users have left websites in large numbers over seemingly small issues like this due to their larger implications, and it could happen to Github over this issue." Where's the falsehood in the premise? I've already mentioned the Patreon exodus and the SourceForge exodus as examples proving the phenomenon exists (though there's no studies or statistics out there to be found and that's the only evidence you'll accept.) Assuming you don't deny the premises despite the lack of peer-reviewed scientific studies of them, I'd guess that you primarily disagree on the possible effect of the feature implemented here being revoked. There's no way to know for sure. It's pure speculation based on available information. I have witnessed the rise and fall of internet giants since the mid-1990s, and the fall of socially oriented sites tends to come from two major mistakes: someone else coming along with a much more compelling offering (MySpace losing to Facebook, for example) or the company setting off a user shitstorm by making a big mistake that showed how out of touch with the user base they were (SourceForge and Patreon.) Notably, the SourceForge and Patreon mistakes didn't actually affect the vast majority of the user base, just as revoking this feature on Github wouldn't, but they resulted in the downfall of both sites because they signaled a major philosophical shift in the management of those services that brought their trustworthiness into question. The users think, "this could happen to me...do I really want to take the risk?" At some point a critical mass of the user base is pushed beyond their risk tolerance and a bandwagon effect is set off.
People were already slowly moving over to Github for years prior, but major projects started bailing out around 2013, starting with Gimp leaving. Wine and Notepad++ eventually left too. Because web traffic stats aren't available beyond six months without buying plans on Alexa or SimilarWeb, there is no definitive way to show a statistical correlation without paying for something I don't feel like paying for, but if you look at search interest in Github on Google Trends you'll see several jumps in search interest after 2013, starting with October/November 2013, the same time frame in which Gimp left SourceForge. Github was the biggest alternative platform to SourceForge at the time, so it was the easiest place for developers to run to, especially since Github's migration support made the process very easy.
Your assertion is that "deleting issues that mention security flaws" "potentially causes harm." The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion. There is no evidence that this has ever happened or ever will happen. You weaken your argument by couching it as "potentially" which should make it much easier to support with philosophical arguments, but you simply state it as if it should be accepted without any discussion. Please explain exactly how you think someone might potentially be harmed by the deletion of a security-related issue in a Github issue tracker and how the other methods I've mentioned don't sufficiently mitigate this potential to cause harm. Your equivocation is fallacious because (loosely using the house analogy for illustration) allowing someone to spraypaint my personal info on the front of my house is not the same thing as allowing that person to spraypaint my personal info on the front of their house. My house is a central part of my life where people go to make contact with me, while their house is almost certainly not going to have anything to do with me and the only people who'll find my personal info painted there are those that are trying very hard to do so and those that happen to stop by but don't care about me or my personal info at all.
I already said that tenancy rights aren't part of opening a repo on Github, so why are you acting like I said otherwise? You didn't actually read what I wrote. I wrote a lot of stuff, partly legal, partly philosophical, but you only came back with this while ignoring everything I wrote. I believe that you are arguing in bad faith and there's no point in continuing this discussion as long as you continue to do this.
The emoticon crap doesn't actually matter. When you latch onto that, it's a strong indicator that you're either grasping at straws or that you don't want to argue with logic and reason. It's a litmus test to see if you're dishonest and go after people personally rather than being a good faith actor in the discussion. If you're concerned with rational discussion then a bunch of emoticons doesn't matter in the slightest. You took the bait.
When you're presented with facts that refute your beliefs and you continue to hold that belief despite those facts, you are clearly demonstrating that you're not willing to change your mind.
All argumentation is "manipulation." You're trying to convince someone to hold a particular belief. Attempting to use the bad connotation of "manipulation" to discredit me, ironically, fits the bad connotation understanding of "manipulation" and is an ad hominem fallacy, implying that I have nefarious intentions. You can say bad things about me but they won't change the substance of my arguments. The messenger doesn't change the message.
In matters of opinion, there is no "right." In matters of fact, the truth is the only thing that is "right." This is a needless attempt at splitting hairs that can't be split and is straying far from this discussion's main point.
Which you have every right to do. I don't care about your opinion on what is ethical and what isn't unless you can make a convincing argument for why I should.
Because your subjective ethical standards are offended by my behavior, ergo I must submit to those standards and be embarrassed? This is nothing but ad hominem anyway, so I won't entertain it further.
I understand...
Quote what I've said that you consider rude, just for my own edification...
Two people can have very different and overlapping perceptions of what is and isn't rude, and what's rude in some communities and cultures is not rude in others and vice-versa. It doesn't matter because if you were focused on the substance of arguments rather than policing propriety to "win" those arguments, you wouldn't be paying attention to "rudeness" in the first place; you'd ignore the distasteful presentation and attack the argument within, as I have done with everything you've been saying to me. I find your propriety policing to be obnoxious, but I don't dismiss your arguments on that basis because it's not logically valid to do so. In my highly subjective opinion, it's worse to be polite and argue in bad faith than to be rude and argue in good faith. |
|
I created an "issue" and I wanted to completely delete it, just like any other website in the world that allows people to delete post in case its posted wrong. |
|
@RobFosterNYC Nice try! |
|
This edits of the picture screen shot you so happen to post, |
|
so maybe i should edit my accidentally created issue like this because i cant delete my issue on my own. check link if still exist https://github.com/evrencoskun/TableView/issues/221 +1 for it
|
|
I would very much like the possibility of a complete removal of the issue. I created by chance when I turned the card into an issue in the Projects section. And unfortunately I could not delete - is garbage. A lot of time has passed since the creation of the problem about the fact that they cannot be deleted, and apparently they will not add this function in the near future, I hope people from microsoft will create a problem by chance in their repository, then let's see what they say. Instead of deleting, I had to call issue accidentally created - this is a bad decision, but the only one for today. jfx-extras/jfx-window#1 - an example of garbage that turns out. |
|
Issues CAN be deleted now, this was implemented, as per the tag shows on this issue. |
|
@jshwhitlow nobody has replied to this issue in a year, so who are you even talking to? Please don't necro old issues and trigger notifications to everyone following it for no reason. |
|
@kaitlynbrown It appears that the person @jshwhitlow was responding to deleted their (really stupid) comments. They were threatening to sue GitHub if they could not remove sensitive data, to which @jshwhitlow responded that they already could. Apparently they were enlightened and realized that they were making a fool of themselves and tossed their replies. If you are subscribed to this thread, you should have received copies of those ridiculous posts. @isaacs Would you be willing to please lock the thread since there is no value in further discussion here? |
|
It is in Beta currently, in organization options (with NAME = the organization): -> "Issue deletion" |
|
@dsfsvsdva The person deleted their posts. Maybe you should learn to read before you make an ass of yourself in public. ...oh! It was YOU! Here, I'll publish the things you deleted so @kaitlynbrown and others can see them. Hot from my trash file:
|
|
...can't we now just delete this issue? |
|
or at least, if GitHub doesn't want to permanently delete the issue, |
|
I gleefully allowed my e-mail inbox to stockpile (without reading) notifications for this issue from the past year or so. What fun to speed read them all in one go. |
|
Right now, it only allows you to delete an issue if you are repo owner but doesn't allow you if you're issue author and not repo owner. Github should allow you to delete your own issue you created even if you're not the repo owner because you are issue author and you should have the right to delete your own issue you created. |
|
^ this |
@jenkins420 nope, you can't delete an issue if the issue have at least 1 reply. This is better way. |
It might go against GDPR regulations though under the broadly applicable 'right to erasure':
(emphasis added) |
read better this text:
Issue does not contain the personal data. Issue contain only issue-related data. Only @github concerned by GDPR due it store emails, names and other personal data. Next time read better the laws! |
|
A comment can very much be 'data concerning him or her'. I've had a similar case as the one referenced in case C-434/16. Here premise 42 states:
And this is just a comment made by another person about the data subject. As a precedence has been set for this I expect that the EU would similarly rule that comments made by a data subject is covered as personal data concerning the subject. |
|
@sthyregod in case of This topic started about 2 ways:
Some time after many not so adequate folks turned it into kind of shit "let the repositary owner to delete all issues". If the user want to delete his own issue he made - let him to delete the information he wrote. W/O touching the information (=posts) made by other folks, due he does not own this information (=replies) and he don't have a right to decide at the place of another people. |
and others
SO 93 upvotes: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3081521/removing-github-issues . Seems impossible today. As pointed by CommuSoft there, might be illegal in Europe =)
E.g.: I was doing two things at the same time and created an issue on the bad repo: markdownlint/markdownlint#46
https://github.com/jdennes replied:
Likely GitHub does not implement this because then the asker would be able to remove useful answers from other people (but as usual GitHub is very secretive and does not give us rationale). There are two possibilities to reduce that concern:
allow project admins to do it only as proposed on GitLab: http://feedback.gitlab.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/6584418-remove-issues-and-milestones
This should definitely be allowed, considering that the owner can already destroy the entire repo in one go...
allow OP to remove it if there are no answers somewhat like Stack Overflow: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that
I don't see why not, and would solve many cases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: