It'd be interesting to see how many of those bugs are actual logic bugs vs avoidable type level bugs users hit before even getting to the logic stuff.
As I am somehow fascinated with Haskell, I would love to go through all the fixed bugs in some Haskell repos to see if there are some common patterns.
What would you expect to find?
I'd expect Haskell bugs to be more about misunderstood/incorrectly implemented business logic whereas more dynamic languages potentially have a lot more issues that stem from not being able to enforce invariants at compile time. Mind you that they probably still have the same potential logic bugs lurking behind, users just may not have gotten there yet cause some code path led to 23 being added to "foo".
This is based on many years working full time in Ruby, while at the same time time running FP user groups and contributing to various compiler projects, both statically and dynamically typed.
I would expect something similar.
At the summary of studies that I link in the blog, there is reference to this talk were "The speaker used data from Github to determine that approximately 2.7% of Python bugs are type errors".
I was quite surprised.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.