Another bot-able tool might be pinging inactive PRs to ask if they're being
worked on, and labelling "Needs contributor" if there's no reply within n

On 20 September 2016 at 00:05, Joel Nothman <> wrote:

> On 17 September 2016 at 01:21, Gael Varoquaux <
>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:14:12AM +1000, Joel Nothman wrote:
>> > One downside is that there does not yet seem to be a way to search for
>> > PRs with a specified level of approval (while searching for "MRG+1"
>> sort-of
>> > works).
>> Yes, I do that a lot. So this is not a great improvement for me.
> A lot of the new features, including this, do not seem to have Github APIs
> (or at least documentation) yet. When we adopted title hacking, PRs could
> not receive labels. *Would labels be an improvement over title hacking
> for recording approval status?*
> I think it would be worth trying to have a rough *priority ranking for
> things we'd like to see in 0.19*. However the Github Milestones feature
> is a bit crippled in UI: you can rank issues, but cannot filter by anything
> but open/closed, so for instance cannot see bugs and non-bugs separately.
> Perhaps Projects come to supersede that, although I think they work best
> for small-scale sprints rather than release-level milestones. And you
> cannot search sorted by milestone priority.
> Apart from an interface for manual prioritising, I think we would benefit
> from *automatic labelling*:
> * of issues to say when a PR mentioning the issue exists
> * of PRs to say whether there's been 1 or 2 LGTMs by core devs
> There are a number of issue labelling bots around --
> seems to be one of the more
> configurable -- but hosted solutions don't seem readily available.
> Does anyone know of strong preferences for tracking + labelling bot
> solutions? seems to go in this direction but is relatively
> inflexible.
scikit-learn mailing list

Reply via email to