Claude Code has over 5000 open issues. And this is after issues that are inactive for 60 days being auto closed. Such a policy is facetious to say the least. What is more perplexing is why they don't use Claude to triage the issues?
I think the idea is that nobody will be using CC in 5 years. If anthropic loses, nobody will use it. If anthropic wins, still nobody will use it! The value is in the model solving problems, and CC is just the hacky vessel for that, not the end goal. If they believe in themselves, polishing the product is a waste of time.
This is about some issues are closed incorrectly due to a bug.
But as for the policy itself, why not? If an issue is inactive for 60 days it's very likely to stay so forever.
Claude Code has over 5000 open issues. And this is after issues that are inactive for 60 days being auto closed. Such a policy is facetious to say the least. What is more perplexing is why they don't use Claude to triage the issues?
I think the idea is that nobody will be using CC in 5 years. If anthropic loses, nobody will use it. If anthropic wins, still nobody will use it! The value is in the model solving problems, and CC is just the hacky vessel for that, not the end goal. If they believe in themselves, polishing the product is a waste of time.
> What is more perplexing is why they don't use Claude to triage the issues?
I wonder if it's because of cost.
At scale this works: If the issue is affecting enough user base, the issue will still be in the list.
Ya, but when you're not at scale it's annoying