Calm down :) As you can read from the last comment, we can choose whether to * Close with comment and label * Comment and label only * Comment only * Do nothing
The lucene-solr repo is not dead, it will still be used for back-porting bugfixes to branch_8_11 for probably another 12 months. Byt several branches are dead/archived, and it really makes no sense to keep PRs for those alive either. This is a proposal for a one-time action, introducing a stale-bot for the project, which I can see is more controversial and annoying for sure. Jan > 8. des. 2021 kl. 13:04 skrev Robert Muir <[email protected]>: > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
