i mean you dont even have anything close to fucking consensus about "bulk close" on this thread. most are against it. why be so fucking sneaky about it? I don't get it!
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:03 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:01 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I added my vote against bulk close functionality. > > it is pretty clear from this thread that several of us are opposed to > > bulk close. > > > > somehow the discussion jumped from bulk commenting to bulk close. fuck that! > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:39 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I gave it a shot, and it works, so with this change to githubPRs.py > > > script: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/2625 we can close all > > > open PRs with a comment and label with a single command. The script can > > > also easily be adapted to other use cases. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > 8. des. 2021 kl. 01:33 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > +1 to bulk commenting on the 274 open PRs with a standard message about > > > > the need for new PRs. > > > > We already have a "stale-closed" label in GitHub, so if we add that > > > > label to all the issues they can safely be closed without information > > > > loss. > > > > My script > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/dev-tools/scripts/githubPRs.py > > > > can probably be tweaked to do these actions. It uses a python GitHub > > > > library and already fetches all open PRs, and allows to pass a token, > > > > so I guess that the token will also allow edits on behalf of the user. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > >> 2. des. 2021 kl. 17:55 skrev Michael Sokolov <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > >> In this specific instance, I don't see the harm in leaving these > > > >> issues there since the entire repo is essentially an archival artifact > > > >> at this point. If we actually want to notify people that "hey your > > > >> issue is in a dead zone, do you want to revive it? Here's how ..." we > > > >> could maybe generate some emails? Although I really have no idea how > > > >> we would accomplish that. > > > >> > > > >> In general, I'm in favor of cleaning up / closing issues that are > > > >> clearly not going to be worked. > > > >> > > > >> For example in JIRA we have so many old issues that they can clutter > > > >> up search results, making it much harder for new contributors > > > >> (especially) to find "interesting" issues that might be relevant today > > > >> and workable. I have heard various arguments for keeping these old > > > >> issues: they represent an historical view of the project; "you never > > > >> know" maybe they become relevant again; and this idea of not annoying > > > >> people by arbitrarily closing their issue. These all have some > > > >> validity, but I we have to strike a balance. I wonder if we can > > > >> address them in another way. In JIRA can we keep these old issues > > > >> while hiding them from default searches. Can we "archive" old issues > > > >> in some way? Maybe there is a "Status" like Archived that is different > > > >> from Closed. Anything but Open! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:15 PM Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I understand the frustrations around closing somebody’s PR as stale, > > > >>> but I also think that there is value in informing the contributors I > > > >>> this is never getting solved/fixed/looked at, if this is still > > > >>> important please go over there instead. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:55 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Michael McCandless > > > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Could we maybe instead bulk-add a comment explaining the split and > > > >>>>> how to take the PR forwards if someone (in the future) has > > > >>>>> itch/time? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know we humans love to clean things up, but I think leaving such > > > >>>>> "unclean" things open serves an important purpose. They all had > > > >>>>> importance to at least one person at one point in time, and likely > > > >>>>> many of them are still relevant if they piqued someones curiosity > > > >>>>> to dig back into them. Closing them makes them harder to find for > > > >>>>> the future developer. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I'm sure some of them are already resolved/duplicates too. If only > > > >>>>> we could divine which are which. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> +1, I'd rather not auto-close PRs. I'm always frustrated by this when > > > >>>> I see it in other trackers. Is there a rush to close these for some > > > >>>> reason? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
