Hello Everyone, The stale bot started to close the stale PRs as the week passed. But afraid not! Even if the PR got closed by stalebot - they are not gone, you can still re-open the issues you would like to continue working on.
So feel free to re-open the PRs! That will also be sign for committers that the PR is still "alive". I truly hope this process will be much better than 100s of abandoned issues. J. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
