Hello All contributors, ACTION MIGHT BE NEEDED FROM YOUR SIDE :). Please review your prs marked as stale and do some action if you want to unstale them.
There are currently 71 issues marked as stale: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Astale&utf8=%E2%9C%93 If you are an author of any of those issues, you should already get a notification from the stalebot that they will be closed in a few days. And well... they will be closed if you make no action. Rebasing the issue to latest master is a great indication that you are willing to continue working with your PRs and lead it through to a successful completion (and it will be also a sign to committers that they should make a review. I marked as "pinned" all the issues that are part of our ongoing long-term effort (Such as pylint changes or optimising DagRun - waiting for serialization implementation). J. On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > ACTION NEEDED BY ALL CONTRIBUTORS: Please add comment to the PRs that you > are still working and you got notified that they are marked as "stale". If > you do not comment on those PRs, they will be automatically closed in a > week by the stalebot. > > Suddenly the stalebot started to work as expected. It was few days after > the infrastructure team followed up with Github and got no response, so > maybe they finally found and fixed the problem without telling us. > > We are going to run an experiment now to see if stalebot is good for us. > From now on It will be the contributor's responsibility now to have > activity on their PRs in order to prevent them from marking as > stale/closing. We are going to see if the current settings (45 days to mark > as stale + 7 days to close it) are not too aggressive. > > > We have 92 issues marked as "stale" now and in a week they will get closed > if no action is taken for them. I am going to review the PRs and mark some > of the issues as "pinned" - those that we know might continue being open > for a long time (such as pylint changes). If you have other issues that you > want to mark as "pinned" - ping me on slack and I can also mark them as > "pinned". But in general - if you want to make your PR open, just do some > activities with it - rebasing, commenting, fixups - all of them keep the > issue updated. > > J. > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:39 AM Driesprong, Fokko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Great work Jarek. I think the stalebot is a great addition. Even if an >> issue gets closed unresolved, it is an indication to me that the issue >> might not be relevant. In the end you can always reopen issues again. >> >> Cheers, Fokko >> >> Op di 2 jul. 2019 om 07:41 schreef Jarek Potiuk <[email protected] >> > >> >> > If we finally find out why stale bot does not work - the issue is still >> not >> > solved - stale bot has a number of feature that make management of the >> > issues easy. And it is super-lightweight and helps to work in a >> > community-compatible way. No need to have single person managing >> everything >> > as long as we agree to some simple rules. Stale bot works with comments >> and >> > labels and it actually implements fairly natural workflow of an issue >> and >> > you can see from the comment history the whole context of what was going >> > on. >> > >> > 1) stale comments x days (7 by default) in advance that an issue is >> going >> > to be closed. I am looking through comments in our github but I have >> also >> > some rules to flag important mails (Gmail is great for that). You can >> > easily have stale bot messages surface up. >> > 2) A comment on issue is enough to keep it active for another stale time >> > (60 days by default) - a committer can pig the person responsible and >> that >> > is enough to defer stale status for next 60 days. >> > 3) You can set a label on important issues/pulls so that it never get >> stale >> > ("pinned", "security" are default ones but we can choose our own) >> > 4) You can limit the stale bot to only "issues", "pulls" or have both >> > >> > So all-in-all - I think we could work out a pretty decent stale >> > configuration and follow a simple set of rules. >> > >> > But we need to find out what is updating our issues regularly first. The >> > issue ( >> > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/INFRA/issues/INFRA-18589?filter=reportedbyme >> > ) >> > is still not solved. >> > >> > J. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Don't know if we can configure the stable to ping the commiters (not >> all >> > > but some) twice before closing a PR. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 15:25 Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > An example of why I'm not a _huge_ van of stale bot, at least not >> for >> > > > issues. >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/issues/685 >> > > > >> > > > That is still an issue but was closed just because no one responded >> to >> > > it. >> > > > >> > > > > On 11 Jun 2019, at 06:50, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > This issue bugs me a lot. Pretty much all our PRs were updated 2 >> days >> > > ago >> > > > > again :( >> > > > > >> > > > > I've opened the ticket to Apache Infrastructure >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18589 and I hope we >> can >> > > get >> > > > to >> > > > > the bottom of it. I believe it might be some integration we have >> > (but I >> > > > > have no access to it). I looked at other Apache repositories and >> they >> > > do >> > > > > not have similar "updates" happening, so it must be something >> > specific >> > > > for >> > > > > apache/airflow repo. >> > > > > >> > > > > J. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:41 PM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Well. Github support is quite far from being helpful :(. We'll >> have >> > to >> > > > dig >> > > > >> deeper on our own it seems >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Our apologies for the wait, and thank you for getting in touch! >> Due >> > > to a >> > > > >> high volume of requests, we are currently experiencing much >> longer >> > > than >> > > > >> average response times here in Support. You asked: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Can you please let us know what action caused the update and what >> > can >> > > we >> > > > >> do to prevent it from happening again ? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> The updated_at for any object, including users, will change >> whenever >> > > the >> > > > >> database record for that object is updated. Such database updates >> > can >> > > > >> happen for many reasons, though we don't have a complete list of >> > those >> > > > to >> > > > >> share with you and your team. We wish could be of more help here >> as >> > we >> > > > see >> > > > >> how this can be a problem for you and your team, but we don't >> > > currently >> > > > >> have any other insight to share at this time. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Please let us know how else we can be of help! >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >>> All our PRs were updated again on Wednesday, 15th of May. I am >> > > > following >> > > > >>> up with Github support (they have not responded so far). >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Maybe someone happens to know what could have caused the update >> > (some >> > > > >>> automated job? bot? CI?). There is absolutely no update visible >> in >> > > the >> > > > UI >> > > > >>> of github for those. I also looked at the fork in some cases - >> > > nothing >> > > > >>> changed for those either. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Or maybe someone has contact at Github so that they verify/fix >> it >> > > > faster >> > > > >>> ? They must be able to see from the logs what happened to those >> > PRs - >> > > > from >> > > > >>> our point of view looks like most of those PRs were not touched >> for >> > > > several >> > > > >>> months. >> > > > >>> I responded to them with this (the ticket number is 159141). >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Hello GitHub support, >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> We continue to have the same problem. Pretty much all our PR >> were >> > > > updated >> > > > >>> again 4 days ago - which prevents stalebot from closing them. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Example here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4635 - >> this >> > PR >> > > > was >> > > > >>> last touched 3 months ago, yet when we list it with this query >> > > https:// >> > > > >>> github >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> .com/apache/airflow/pulls?page=5&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-05-16+sort%3Aupdated-desc&utf8=%E2%9C%93 >> > > > it >> > > > >>> shows as updated 4 days ago (i.e. on Wed 15th of May). I cannot >> > find >> > > > any >> > > > >>> indicatio of a change that could have caused the update date to >> be >> > > > bumped >> > > > >>> again. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Can you please let us know what action caused the update and >> what >> > can >> > > > we >> > > > >>> do to prevent it from happening again ? >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> J. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 3:54 PM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>>> I raised an issue with Github. Let's see what they say: >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Jarek, >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Thank you for contacting GitHub Developer Support. We wanted to >> > let >> > > > you >> > > > >>>> know that we've received your message and will get to it as >> > quickly >> > > as >> > > > >>>> possible. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Ticket ID: 159141 >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> We've also included a copy of your message below. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> If you have any additional information or would like to add >> > anything >> > > > to >> > > > >>>> your initial message, now would be a great time to do so, feel >> > free >> > > to >> > > > >>>> reply to this email. If not, then rest assured your request is >> in >> > > the >> > > > right >> > > > >>>> hands :) >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Thank you! >> > > > >>>> The GitHub Developer Support Team >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> *Jarek Potiuk* >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> May 6, 1:47 PM UTC >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Hello All, >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> In Apache Airflow project we are trying to use stalebot to >> closed >> > > > >>>> not-updated pull requests. And for some reason the bot does not >> > > really >> > > > >>>> closed our old tickets. We checked what could be wrong and it >> > seems >> > > > that >> > > > >>>> pretty much all our PRs get somehow updated regularly. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Last time I checked more than 100 PRs were updated at 27th of >> > April >> > > > and >> > > > >>>> yesterday I checked that 118 requests were updated on 28th of >> > April. >> > > > It >> > > > >>>> does not seem that there was any action that could have caused >> the >> > > > updates. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Here are all the requests (all of them updated 27th of April): >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-28+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> And here is an example PR that was updated 27th of April but >> there >> > > > seem >> > > > >>>> to be no action that could have caused it: >> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4929 >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Can you please explain where the updates are coming from and >> how >> > we >> > > > can >> > > > >>>> avoid the updates from happening? >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 3:39 AM Jiajie Zhong < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > >>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>>> It's really odd. I don't know this issue. I think maybe >> travis-c >> > > > update >> > > > >>>>> our PR time at first but it don't. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> BTW, I take a look on some PR and give some example. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5135 create 17 days >> ago, >> > > last >> > > > >>>>> comment 16 days ago, and travis-ci finish 17 days ago (which >> mean >> > > > that CI >> > > > >>>>> process don't touch it and change PR update time) >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5136 >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> Best wish. >> > > > >>>>> -- Jiajie >> > > > >>>>> ________________________________ >> > > > >>>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 4:04 >> > > > >>>>> To: [email protected] >> > > > >>>>> Cc: airflowuser >> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Automatically mark stale PRs in github >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> I believe our current stale bot configuration does not work. >> And >> > I >> > > do >> > > > >>>>> not >> > > > >>>>> know the reason yet, which worries me :( >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> There is something really strange going on with our PRs and >> their >> > > > >>>>> updated >> > > > >>>>> date. Again pretty much all the PRs were mysteriously updated >> on >> > > > *27th >> > > > >>>>> of >> > > > >>>>> April - 8 days ago* (similarly as the previous case where I >> saw >> > all >> > > > PRs >> > > > >>>>> updated on *6th of April*). >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> You can see it here: >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> * there are just 2(!) PRs updated before 27th of April: >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-27+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >> > > > >>>>> * there are 120 (!) PRS updated before 28th of April: >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-28+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> There is no indication that most of those impacted issues >> were at >> > > all >> > > > >>>>> touched on 27th or 28th of April. If you look at random PRs >> > there, >> > > > most >> > > > >>>>> of >> > > > >>>>> them were commented latest at the beginning of April. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> Looks like 8 days ago some process has bumped the update date >> for >> > > > most >> > > > >>>>> of >> > > > >>>>> our PRs. With this kind of "regular" (it seems) process of >> > marking >> > > > the >> > > > >>>>> requests "updated" our stale bot is useless. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> Does anyone have an idea why it might have happened? >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> I am quite puzzled by this one. I am going to open an issue to >> > > Github >> > > > >>>>> support if no one has an idea what's going on. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> J. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:39 PM Jiajie Zhong < >> > > > >>>>> [email protected]> >> > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> I think we should change stale-bot strategy to auto close >> PR, If >> > > 30 >> > > > >>>>> days >> > > > >>>>>> is too short for contributions, is 60 or 90 days make sence? >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> In addition, I notice that we have some PR pass CI but none >> > review >> > > > it >> > > > >>>>> or >> > > > >>>>>> let a suggest on it. So could we add a bot auto remind >> committer >> > > if >> > > > >>>>> PR pass >> > > > >>>>>> CI but no one review? >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> Or remind author if CI failed? >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> Does it make sence? >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> Best wish. >> > > > >>>>>> -- Jiajie >> > > > >>>>>> ________________________________ >> > > > >>>>>> From: airflowuser <[email protected]> >> > > > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 16:39 >> > > > >>>>>> To: [email protected] >> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Automatically mark stale PRs in github >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> Since there are many many open PRs in the repo it can be hard >> > for >> > > > >>>>>> committers to keep track (I think that you are keeping tack >> by >> > the >> > > > >>>>> mailing >> > > > >>>>>> list which sometimes can easily be missed). >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> It may be easier to tack using the filter of recently updated >> > (see >> > > > >>>>> image) >> > > > >>>>>> I hoped that some day this will be the default order of PRs. >> > That >> > > > way >> > > > >>>>>> activity in a PR from the last page would bump it to the >> front. >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> > > > >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 11:32 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor < >> > > > >>>>> [email protected]> >> > > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> As a user/reporter on other opensource projects I would >> > > personally >> > > > >>>>> see >> > > > >>>>>> auto-close after 30 days to be far too aggressive to the >> point >> > of >> > > > >>>>> being >> > > > >>>>>> unfriendly to contributions. >> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> Unless we get markedly better at merging PRs I wouldn't >> want to >> > > see >> > > > >>>>> us >> > > > >>>>>> mark as stale so quickly. >> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> -ash >> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 22:07, Jarek Potiuk >> > [email protected] >> > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>>>>>> Here is a better search showing all the 103 issues - all of >> > them >> > > > >>>>>> "updated" >> > > > >>>>>>>> 17 days ago >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > > > >>>>>> <2019-04-06+sort%3Aupdated-desc >> > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:06 PM Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>>>> [email protected] >> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> I think current stalebot configuration will not help us >> for >> > > > >>>>> quite a >> > > > >>>>>> while >> > > > >>>>>>>>> for mysterious reason. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> I looked at the current PRs and somehow mysteriously vast >> > > > >>>>> majority of >> > > > >>>>>>>>> issues (even issues last-commented in 2017) have been >> updated >> > > 17 >> > > > >>>>>> days ago. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GF1fdpYa2Tf25N3XgAEKrdXBwr9mNH9/view?usp=sharing >> > > > >>>>>>>>> It looks like they were all updated on 6th of April, at >> 00:13 >> > > > >>>>> CEST. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> There are 103 such issues: >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=✓&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A> >> > < >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > >> > > < >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > > >> > > > < >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> < >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> < >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> <2019-04-06+. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> It would be nice to find out why this happened. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> From stalebot documentation: "Any change to an issues and >> > pull >> > > > >>>>>> request is >> > > > >>>>>>>>> considered an update, including comments, changing labels, >> > > > >>>>> applying >> > > > >>>>>> or >> > > > >>>>>>>>> removing milestones, or pushing commits.". I think none of >> > that >> > > > >>>>>> happened to >> > > > >>>>>>>>> most of the 103 issues (i checked a few and could not find >> > any >> > > > >>>>> trace >> > > > >>>>>> of any >> > > > >>>>>>>>> such changes). But maybe someone can recall something that >> > > > >>>>> happened >> > > > >>>>>> 6th of >> > > > >>>>>>>>> April around midnight (Saturday). >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Current configuration of stalebot (.github/stalebot.yaml) >> > says: >> > > > >>>>> 45 >> > > > >>>>>> days >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (mark as stakle) and further 7 days (closing). So those >> > issues >> > > > >>>>> will >> > > > >>>>>> be >> > > > >>>>>>>>> marked as stale by the stalebot around May 20th (providing >> > that >> > > > >>>>> such >> > > > >>>>>> update >> > > > >>>>>>>>> won't happen again). >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Maybe then we can set it to 20 days + 7 for now to stale >> most >> > > > >>>>> issues >> > > > >>>>>> up >> > > > >>>>>>>>> in 3 days and delete them 10 days from now? If the config >> > will >> > > > >>>>> be too >> > > > >>>>>>>>> aggressive we can change it back after the 103 issues are >> > > > >>>>> cleaned-up. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> J. >> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:54 AM airflowuser >> > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It's already on (or at least was on in December 2018). >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In any case here is a list of old PRs that are waiting >> for >> > > > >>>>>> committers. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-1956] Add parameter whether the navbar clock >> time >> > is >> > > > >>>>> UTC >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/2906 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Status: ash commented but there are no further >> instructions. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-620] Feature to tail custom number of logs >> instead >> > of >> > > > >>>>>> rendering >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whole log >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/3992 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Status: Pushed changed in Jan 2019 that were not reviewed >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-3149 Support dataproc cluster deletion on ERROR >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4064 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Status: pushed changes today. CI passed. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-1424] make the next execution date of DAGs >> visible >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/2460 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Status: not sure. Waiting for ash ? >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-1488] Add the TriggeredDagRunSensor operator >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4291 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Status: Waiting for code review >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:01 AM, Daniel Imberman < >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> As part of our effort to reduce the PR backlog I wanted >> to >> > > > >>>>>> proposed that >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we set the github stale action >> > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apps/stale. >> > > > >>>>>> This will >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> allow us to temporarily close PRs/tickets that are not >> > > > >>>>> actively >> > > > >>>>>> being >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> worked on. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (note that this will not remove PRs, it will simply mark >> > > > >>>>> PRs as >> > > > >>>>>> stale to >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make it easier for committers) >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> -- >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Polidea https://www.polidea.com/ | Principal Software >> > Engineer >> > > > >>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> E: [email protected] >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> -- >> > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea https://www.polidea.com/ | Principal Software >> > Engineer >> > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >>>>>>>> E: [email protected] >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> -- >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software >> Engineer >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >>>>> E: [email protected] >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> -- >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software >> Engineer >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >>>> E: [email protected] >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> -- >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software >> Engineer >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >>> E: [email protected] >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -- >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> > > > >> >> > > > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > >> E: [email protected] >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > >> > > > > Jarek Potiuk >> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> > > > > >> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jarek Potiuk >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
