Repository navigation
Community Feedback Handling #6237
Description
Please see: #4380
Why are we closing issues created with generic wording.
The issue was non-technical about having a proper mechanism to gather feedback, and address it publicly to improve usability, and transparency with the community, and to bolster the open-source nature of the project (or at least what it should be).
Please address this properly.
Activity
jam-jee commentedon Oct 1, 2026
Hi @des1-gner and thanks @lorenzwalthert for keeping this on our radar. You are right. #4380 is about how we handle community feedback, not about any particular SDK version, and closing it with the 2.x sunset notice was a mistake.
Here is what happened. With SageMaker Python SDK 2.x in maintenance mode, we went through the open backlog to separate issues that only apply to 2.x and no longer apply on 3.x, so that the remaining list reflects what we can actually act on. We used an AI-assisted pass to help sort that backlog, and it put this issue in the wrong bucket, likely along with a few others. That is on us, not on how the issue was written. #4380 has been reopened and will stay open.
On the broader point: we agree that community handling in this repo needs to be better, and we are working on it. We are now going through the remaining open issues one at a time, with a person reading each one and deciding what to do with it. There will be no further bulk triage or bulk closing. If you come across another issue that was closed in that sweep and should not have been, please leave a comment on it and we will reopen it.
We will keep #4380 as the place to track the feedback-handling points raised there and will post updates as we make progress. Thank you for pushing on this.
lorenzwalthert commentedon Oct 2, 2026
Thanks @jam-jee. From the number of upvotes (12 currently) in #4380, it seems other people feel the same as me. For triaging, I recommend looking at upvotes and number of people who commented and if an AWS Support Ticket is attached. I think we can close this issue as a duplicate of #4380 since It is re-opened. Agree @des1-gner?