Problem
I’m concerned that good first issue (
good first issue
Issues that are suitable for first-time contributors.
) issues get spammed so heavily that we may become less likely to use the label at all. Which I think is already happening.
That would be a bad outcome, because it could quietly raise the barrier for new contributors. A genuine contributor may see several open PRs and a long comment thread, assume the issue is already taken, and move on.
One example is #60884, where people continue opening PRs or asking to work on it despite several PRs already being open.
To be clear, the goal is not to prevent multiple PRs. It is to keep good first issue useful as an entry point for genuine new contributors.
Potential improvements
I checked how some other large repositories handle this and found a few approaches worth considering. I'd be happy to hear other approaches though.
1. Use a different label
Some repositories use less well-known labels instead of good first issue, such as Rust’s [E-easy](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3AE-easy).
Since good first issue is heavily targeted by bots and automated searches, using a different label could reduce some of that noise.
2. Remove the label once there is an active PR
Godot does this: the good first issue label is removed while there is an active PR that appears to solve the issue.
We could start by doing this manually and potentially automate it later based on linked PR status.
3. Add a claim system
Rust uses [@rustbot claim](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) to let contributors claim issues.
I like this option less because of the risk of people claiming issues and disappearing, but claims could expire after a few days unless there is an open PR or visible progress.
Problem
I’m concerned thatIssues that are suitable for first-time contributors.
) issues get spammed so heavily that we may become less likely to use the label at all. Which I think is already happening.
good first issue( good first issueThat would be a bad outcome, because it could quietly raise the barrier for new contributors. A genuine contributor may see several open PRs and a long comment thread, assume the issue is already taken, and move on.
One example is #60884, where people continue opening PRs or asking to work on it despite several PRs already being open.
To be clear, the goal is not to prevent multiple PRs. It is to keep
good first issueuseful as an entry point for genuine new contributors.Potential improvements
I checked how some other large repositories handle this and found a few approaches worth considering. I'd be happy to hear other approaches though.
1. Use a different label
Some repositories use less well-known labels instead of
good first issue, such as Rust’s[E-easy](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3AE-easy).Since
good first issueis heavily targeted by bots and automated searches, using a different label could reduce some of that noise.2. Remove the label once there is an active PR
Godot does this: the
good first issuelabel is removed while there is an active PR that appears to solve the issue.We could start by doing this manually and potentially automate it later based on linked PR status.
3. Add a claim system
Rust uses
[@rustbot claim](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)to let contributors claim issues.I like this option less because of the risk of people claiming issues and disappearing, but claims could expire after a few days unless there is an open PR or visible progress.