Neat! Thanks for showing me where the options are. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote:
> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
