Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhaksw | Hacker News Reader

> @-mention files instead of naming them

Love Claude, but the @ mention is broken in the desktop app. For the same project if I type the same query "@ephem" I get:

CLI: https://imgur.com/a/VZMUCOa (good, relevant results)

Desktop: https://imgur.com/a/QLSo4Ms (bad, irrelevant)

Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed:

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/71421

I could have written the issue better (using CLI as comparison instead of VS Code). But, no doubt in my mind Claude could fix this itself in a minute.

View on HN

Tagging files in Claude desktop in code mode works fine for me, as does CLI. With that said, in Cowork, it's been broken for some time and driving me crazy.

I've shifted most of my usage to Codex/ChatGPT Work. The UX of appshots, browser annotations (now available in claude), and the computer use being so much less intrusive in OpenAI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this case there is a two phase staleness check. The bot marks it as stale and it is correct to "bump" it if you think it is still important. The nixpkgs repo works the same way. I think it backs off from adding stale again as it gets bumped.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but for projects that deal with large amounts of issues it's workable.

They should just utilize the old joke about hiring: immediately throw away half the tickets, because you don't want to work on an unlucky ticket.

It'd save the run around and have the same ultimate effect. Or, we could properly work on tickets instead of making the gate "has enough time to follow up on this 14 days later"

Yes, now the poster of the issue just needs to (tell claude to) write a bot which posts a "bump" comment every 17 days, and the bots will cancel each other out.

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

The stale bots are such a crap.

Stale closing bugs is the worst.

Just because someone moved on from your broke ass product doesn't mean the bug was fixed. I can't count how many times I'll find an old bug still there years later closed with 5+ duplicate issues all linked back to the same closed github issue that was closed as stale.

It's just bullshit. Having a lower count on your issue tracker doesn't make the actual bugs disappear folks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com