I agree. Paola and Elad, I would like to help on this one as well. Let's get together and nail this.
I spent a couple of hours looking through the open Github issues earlier today to look for some patterns. Currently, we have 576 open and "not invalid" issues. Out of these, we have around: - 270 open feature requests, which span the full gamut of functionality, from user visible to internal CI process. - 220 bugs including some going back to March as noted by Tomasz. There seem to be a fair number of these which need some categorization at least. - 70 docs issues. These are categorized sometimes as "area:docs" and at other times as "kind:documentation". - 50 already assigned to milestones: Either Airflow 2.0.0 or 10.10.13 - 80 provider related issues There was a set of 6, created in March 2019 which was rather peculiarly categorized as "Waiting for AIP". These don't all add up the total, since there are issues which are categorized (correctly) in multiple labels. However, we do seem to have proliferation of labels which would be useful to cleanup. Overall, I do think some time spent on documenting the use of labels, then categorizing and cleaning up the issues would be very useful. Happy to help take care of this. Let's do it. Vikram On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 7:12 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah I agree and looks like Paola and Elad have already volunteered to > help > > triage. > > > > Regards, > > Kaxil > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 18:09 Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The main reason I suggested the stale bot was the lack of any > > > widespread prioritization/reviewing of issues which results in big > > > pile of never addresses issues. > > > > > > I think that triage access is a better answer to this problem as > > > engaging more people will help us all. I'm +1 for that. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Tomek > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:00 PM Paola Peraza Calderon > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Paola here from Astronomer. I've been working at Astro since our > early > > > days in both Customer and Product-centric roles and have of course been > > > closely following all-things Airflow for a long time. > > > > > > > > I happened to read this conversation around GH Issue management and > > > figure I can step up to volunteer as someone familiar with the project > + > > > Product Ops principles, if that'd be helpful. I could always start by: > > > > > > > > - Cleaning up/commenting on duplicate issues (or close given the > right > > > permissions) > > > > - Commenting on stale issues and investigate whether they're still a > > > problem or already addressed > > > > - Asking questions as needed if issues need clarification or > additional > > > scoping > > > > > > > > If this would be helpful, I'm more than happy to get involved and > pick > > > at these over time. It'll likely be a journey that never ends, but I > > think > > > a compelling need to keep the community momentum going. Let me know - > and > > > great to meet you all. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Paola > > > > > > > > On 2020/09/10 11:56:22, Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Currently, we have about 582 open issues on Github. The oldest > opened > > > > > in March. Do you think we should consider using stale bot as we do > > for > > > > > PRs? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that issue that is open since March is "so important" > > to > > > > > keep it still open. This would also automate the process of > verifying > > > > > the issue (the author will be notified and asked for an update). If > > > > > the issue is something that we want to keep open we should be able > to > > > > > use the "pinned" label. > > > > > > > > > > Other projects use it and I don't see anything wrong with it. I > would > > > > > say that 30d is a good period for keeping an issue open. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Bests, > > > > > Tomek > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
