Container persistence setting not respected bug
Cluster 1679 · agent. Data as of
Nothing open on GitHub. Fix merged in #1712 on 17 Mar 2026. Check it covers your case.
The short answer
- Known?
- Yes. 3 related items grouped here, 1 issue already closed.
- Fix event
- A fix was merged to main in PR #1712. Check it covers your case. No release data is tracked.
- Tracker
- The maintainers' tracker marks this
resolved, deciding PR #1712. That is separate from the fix event. - Still open
- Nothing open on GitHub.
A bug where the container_persistent=false setting fails to remove containers as expected. Includes related fixes and a project configuration feature.
Open issues0
Open PRs0
Fixes on record
-
#1712 fix+feat: bug fixes, auto session titles, .hermes.md project config
files:
agent/prompt_builder.py,agent/title_generator.py,cli.py,gateway/run.py,hermes_cli/setup.py,tests/agent/test_model_metadata.py,tests/agent/test_prompt_builder.py,tests/agent/test_title_generator.py,tests/tools/test_docker_environment.py,tools/environments/docker.py
1 PR closed without merging
From the close comments: merged via another change 1
-
#1691 Fix container not removed when container_persistent=false (Fixes #1679) · merged via another change →
#1712
Closed issues · 1
- Closed#1679[Bug]: terminal.container_persistent (= false) setting is not respected
How this cluster was grouped
-
Link evidence (
structural links throughout): every member is connected by structural evidence: shared changed files, or a closing/superseded reference. -
Pairwise link density
0.67: the share of item pairs that carry a link, counting a structural link in full and a relevance-only link at 0.36.1.00means every pair is linked.
Pick up a Lab task
Check whether a fix covers the open issues here, with your own agent. Bring back evidence for maintainers.
Open the LabAt a glance
- Subsystem
- agent
- Merged PRs
- #1712
- Closed issues
- 1
- Attempts
- 1 PR closed without merging
- Fix link checked
- 17 Mar 2026. This confirmation is old and may be out of date (a revert or reopen would not have invalidated it here); re-verify.