Fair enough. We can start like this and adapt if needed. Thanks !
Regards JB Le mer. 4 févr. 2026 à 11:45, Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi all, > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this > job running might not be such a big deal: > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not. > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-) > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time > being, the effort required seems minimal. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Thanks, > Alex > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237 > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a > > little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why. > > > > Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make > > more sense to me. > > > > regards, > > > > François > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > > > Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion! > > > > > > While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author > can > > > always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should > automatically > > > close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should > be > > > reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers > manually > > > close issues when appropriate. > > > > > > Regards, > > > JB > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi team, > > >> > > >> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the > > >> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this > > >> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement > > >> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues > > >> automatically? > > >> > > >> Arguments for closing include: > > >> > > >> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively > > >> worked on or are irrelevant. > > >> > > >> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed, > > >> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open. > > >> > > >> Arguments against closing include: > > >> > > >> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has > > >> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important, > > >> unresolved problems. > > >> > > >> What are your thoughts on this? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Alex > > >> > > >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636 > > >> >
