That's actually already how it works. We can configure how long it waits after the message. Currently it is set for 60 day to stale and then 7 days to close. You can see the options we've set up here; there may be more: https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/stale.yml
Kenn On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com> wrote: > 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 <k...@google.com> 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 <ieme...@gmail.com> 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 <k...@google.com> 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 <ieme...@gmail.com> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>
