Glad to see it is working. The requests currently marked stale can be found with https://github.com/apache/beam/labels/stale
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:34 PM Rafael Fernandez <[email protected]> wrote: > Neat! Thanks for showing me where the options are. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>
