Totally agree. By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I got rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack them I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since that makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't have a plan for them.
Kenn On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Kenn, much better. > > Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get > contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to > rescue fixes that can be lost because of minor review issues or > contributor inactivity. > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I >> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750 >> >> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I have >> been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong. >> >> Kenn >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could >>> adjust the label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is >>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we >>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like >>> 'autoclosed'? >>> >>> Who can take care of this? >>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot? >>> >>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and >>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we >>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is >>> not stale because of unfinished reviews. >>> >>
