> On GitHub, it is true that the Issues search shows only open issues by default, but I think users are quite aware that they may need to search for closed issues
I think users are quite unaware, given how we have no evidence they're quite aware, and the normal thought process is "closed == resolved" (fixed, wontfix, etc)
A normal thought process would be to close individual bugs as you confirm they aren't present in the new version – the end user already bore the burden of writing a bug report, and you owe it to them to actually determine if the issue is resolved before closing, even if the resolution is "wontfix".
Closing bug reports without actually caring about whether they were resolved is giving the finger to your users. Why even have bug reports at that point? As far as users are concerned, you'll just close any new ones for some new reason anyways, based on your track record.
Now: new version, all bugs closed. Next: new name, all bugs closed. Then: new logo, all bugs closed. After all, you close whatever bugs you want, whenever you want, for whatever arbitrary reason you want. And why not? It's your repo. Why does it matter if the bugs are fixed or not when you close 'em? You got a new thing! Close all bugs!
Stop right there. When you ask people for feedback, be it 1-on-1s or bug reports, ignoring the feedback is ruder than never having asked in the first place.
If you decided to ask for feedback, and they're kind enough to take time out of their day and spend their efforts to help you out in the way you asked them to help you out, then yes, you DO owe it to the provider to not then tell them to bugger off with said feedback.
If you were going to do that, you should have disabled bug reports from users, instead of asking users to help you by providing feedback. Here is a helpful tutorial on doing that on GitHub: [0]
The act of marketing software doesn't invalidate the license, which often explicitly states that the software comes as-is and free from warranty / support.
I agree with most of this, but I do think that other than the worst of the users (which admittedly are much more visible than the better ones) do in fact understand how to navigate closed issues.
I think users are quite unaware, given how we have no evidence they're quite aware, and the normal thought process is "closed == resolved" (fixed, wontfix, etc)
A normal thought process would be to close individual bugs as you confirm they aren't present in the new version – the end user already bore the burden of writing a bug report, and you owe it to them to actually determine if the issue is resolved before closing, even if the resolution is "wontfix".
Closing bug reports without actually caring about whether they were resolved is giving the finger to your users. Why even have bug reports at that point? As far as users are concerned, you'll just close any new ones for some new reason anyways, based on your track record.
Now: new version, all bugs closed. Next: new name, all bugs closed. Then: new logo, all bugs closed. After all, you close whatever bugs you want, whenever you want, for whatever arbitrary reason you want. And why not? It's your repo. Why does it matter if the bugs are fixed or not when you close 'em? You got a new thing! Close all bugs!