I think the script is already proving helpful, finding PRs whose corresponding issues were closed. I guess it is possible that some of those PRs might still be relevant, but likely most of them should be closed? This seems helpful. I spot checked a couple of these. One of them indeed looked like it was merged <https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1064>, so I closed it with a comment. But the second one I checked <https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/906/files> looked like the src changes were merged but maybe the unit test in the PR failed to be merged <https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/49631ace9f1ee110d52a207377e4926baef74929> ?
And the script can be used to bulk-add comments. I'm still +1 on that. But I really don't want to bulk-close all of the PRs. That just makes these artifacts harder to find in the future. Some of them are still relevant. I just poked around a bit and found this still-open PR from Simon <https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1925> which is/was a nice cleanup, from ~ one year ago now, of how DocumentsWriterPerThread tracks its (tricky!) lifecycle. There are important changes in these still-open PRs, so I really don't think we should close them. Maybe Simon or Nhat or myself comes back and cracks the rust off of this PR. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:57 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm also now even -1 against bulk-comment. You guys are trying to be > too sneaky/passive-aggressive/bypass consensus. I'm stopping this shit > right now in its tracks > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:50 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm -1 against auto-closing issues, as I already stated on this thread. > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:53 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> > wrote: > > > > > > 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 <rcm...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > 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 <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:01 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> > 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 <jan....@cominvent.com> > 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 <jan....@cominvent.com > >: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> +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 < > msoko...@gmail.com>: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 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 <md...@mdrob.com> > 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 <rcm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Michael McCandless > > > >>>>>>>> <luc...@mikemccandless.com> 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
