The new label makes sense to me, but Ismael: I want to make sure your concern is fully addressed. I see your point about making sure we are not shutting the door on a small fix that perhaps went unatended for benign reasons. Perhaps a step before closure is feasble? something like getting a nice message in the PR, "Ahoy! This PR hasn't moved in [X time]. If you're still working on it, can you comment? Otherwise, our highly sophisticated AI will declutter and close it in [Y days]".
Thoughts? On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
