Perhaps 30 days is too quick? 90 days might be better. Also in cases like this one it’s likely that a PR would get more discussion.
The other aspect is it would be helpful if many Pulsar committers would spend effort every few weeks reviewing issues and PRs to engage the community. All the best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 30, 2022, at 9:59 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441 > > Best, > tison. > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月30日周六 13:20写道： > >> Hi Penghui, >> >> Thanks for your feedback! Comments inline: >> >>> If we removed the stale label, how can we know which issues/PRs are >> active? >> >> GitHub Search supports filter by updated time: >> >> * >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3E2022-07-01 >> updated in this month >> * >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2022-07-01 >> recently created >> >> You can see more information at: >> >> * Understanding the search syntax >> https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/getting-started-with-searching-on-github/understanding-the-search-syntax >> * Searching issues and pull requests >> https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/searching-on-github/searching-issues-and-pull-requests >> >>> IMO, it is just a tool that can help us to get a list of all active PRs >> and issues. >> >> Yes. We can achieve this goal as mentioned above in this mail, while a box >> is unfriendly for interaction and wastes CI resources. >> >> Besides, we have even two labels (Stale, lifecycle/stale). Project entropy >> increases if we treat broken windows as not a big deal. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> >> PengHui Li <codelipeng...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月30日周六 09:38写道： >> >>> Hi tison, >>> >>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion. >>> >>> The stale label can help contributors to filter out inactive PRs and >>> issues(no active comments for more than a month) >>> So that the contributors can focus on the active issues and PRs. >>> >>> I think we should start to consider closing the issues and PRs with the >>> stale label manually. >>> If we removed the stale label, how can we know which issues/PRs are >>> active? >>> >>>> From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire >>> more reviewers act on PRs >>> >>> Totally agree, the purpose of the stale label is to help contributors >>> participate in the review work of active PRs. >>> IMO, it is just a tool that can help us to get a list of all active PRs >>> and issues. >>> >>> Best, >>> Penghui >>>> On Jul 29, 2022, 23:09 +0800, tison <wander4...@gmail.com>, wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Previous discussion: >>>>> >>>>> * [DISCUSS] How to handle stale PRs [1] >>>>> * [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive >>> for >>>> more than 4 weeks [2] >>>> >>>> I notice that over 80% (1527/1891 ATM) issues are marked as stable but >>>> nothing happens later. In an offline discussion with @codelipenghui I >>>> learned that we ever wanted to focus on non-stable issues to handle more >>>> inputs but it seems now we don't achieve this goal. >>>> >>>> Refrain my comment in [1] that: >>>> >>>>> From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire >>>> more >>>> reviewers act on PRs. >>>>> Instead of talking about how to do it, reviewing one PR now can help >>> the >>>> case. >>>>> Also, it's reasonable to close inactive PR if there is a successor. >>> But do >>>> not let a bot do it, which will create many corner (bad) cases. >>>> >>>> I observe that those stale comments like a spammer in some thread[3][4] >>> and >>>> IIRC some audiences reacted with negative emoji to those comments. >>>> >>>> Thus, I'd like to know whether you gain some value from the stale bot. >>>> >>>> To me, it seems a potential spammer, frustration maker, and resource >>>> consumer (we run a workflow to label them, and even tried to optimize >>> its >>>> resource occupation[5]). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> tison. >>>> >>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/xxmxwnhnlcptv8wr73200qvprnvrfjt1 >>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0lm9tyjqtgtvwkfowkfhbxy24nh8tyxh >>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15100 >>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13864 >>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14466 >>> >>
