+1 for this enhancement. On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:19 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, sounds like a good idea to clean up stale PRs. > > -Jack > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:52 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I definitely need something to keep emailing me, so I support this. >> >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> We have several examples where we have some kind of "stale" PRs, >>> either because we are waiting for a review, or we are waiting for >>> changes from the contributor. >>> >>> We are already using two jobs around issues/PRs: >>> - labeler to label PRs depending of the Iceberg modules change scope >>> - stale to stale/close issues (we don't touch PRs in stale job today) >>> >>> In order to "improve" the PRs flow, I would like to propose the >>> following: >>> >>> 1. We keep our labeler as it is. I propose to add >>> .github/reviewers.yml to automatically add reviewers depending on the >>> labels. It would look like (this is just an example, I will do a more >>> concrete setup in a PR if there are no objection): >>> >>> labels: >>> - name: API >>> reviewers: >>> - rdblue >>> - aokolnychyi >>> - Fokko >>> exclusionList: [] >>> - name: CORE >>> reviewers: >>> - rdblue >>> - Fokko >>> - nastra >>> exclusionList: [] >>> - name: FLINK >>> reviewers: >>> - nastra >>> exclusionList: [] >>> ... >>> fallbackReviewers: >>> - rdblue >>> - Fokko >>> - nastra >>> - jbonofre >>> >>> 2. We can update the stale job to add a reminder message to >>> reviewer/contributor on PR. For instance, something like: >>> >>> name: Mark and close stale issues and pull requests >>> >>> on: >>> schedule: >>> - cron: '0 0 * * *' >>> workflow_dispatch: >>> >>> permissions: read-all >>> jobs: >>> stale: >>> runs-on: ubuntu-latest >>> permissions: >>> issues: write >>> pull-requests: write >>> steps: >>> - uses: actions/stale@v9 >>> with: >>> stale-issue-label: 'stale' >>> exempt-issue-labels: 'not-stale' >>> days-before-issue-stale: 180 >>> days-before-issue-close: 14 >>> stale-issue-message: > >>> This issue has been automatically marked as stale because >>> it has been open for 180 days >>> with no activity. It will be closed in the next 14 days if >>> no further activity occurs. To >>> permanently prevent this issue from being considered >>> stale, add the label 'not-stale', >>> but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible. >>> close-issue-message: > >>> This issue has been closed because it has not received any >>> activity in the last 14 days >>> since being marked as 'stale' >>> stale-pr-message: 'This pull request has been marked as >>> stale due to 15 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no >>> further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull >>> request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, >>> you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss >>> it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your >>> contributions.' >>> close-pr-message: 'This pull request has been closed due to >>> lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request >>> requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.' >>> stale-pr-label: 'stale' >>> days-before-pr-stale: 15 >>> days-before-pr-close: 7 >>> exempt-pr-labels: "pinned,security" >>> operations-per-run: 100 >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> PS: I did set up this on Apache Beam for example, and we did speed up >>> the review and PR flows. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>
