I prefer to not auto-close anything. An issue that's open forever doesn't
seem to be harmful. That said, I don't feel strongly enough to veto
whatever the consensus is. I love the bulk-comment proposal!
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
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
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 wrote:
>
> I'm -1 against auto-closing issues, as I already stated on this thread.
>
> On
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 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
The same script githubPRs.py also tells us which PRs are linked to an already
closed JIRA, which are clear candidates for closing
Open PRs with a resolved JIRA
#182: SOLR-10415 status=Closed, resolution=Fixed,
resolutiondate=2020-05-01T17:19:28.000+ (SOLR-10415 - improve debug logging
to
> 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.
Correction: This is a proposal for a one-time action, NOT introducing a
stale-bot for the project, which I can see is more controversial and
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
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 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:01 AM Robert Muir wrote:
> >
> > I added my
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:01 AM Robert Muir 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
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 wrote:
>
> I gave it a shot, and it works,
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
+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
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
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 wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Michael McCandless
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
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
We currently have almost 300 open PRs against the "master" branch in the
old lucene-solr repo.
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+base%3Amaster
I think we should close all of them (possibly with a comment pointing
people to the main branch in the lucene or solr
I have closed several PRs where JIRAs were closed.
Also merged several minor PRs with typo fixes and similar, without opening a
JIRA for them.
Would be nice for our first-time contributors if they get an immediate response
when opening a PR!
The updated list of PRs we still have to triage are
I have a PR without a jira ticket, I’ll update the title of the PR.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 3:02 PM Jan Høydahl wrote:
> Hi
>
> I ran the tool dev-tools/scripts/githubPRs.py and JIRA and GitHub tend to
> diverge day by day. Need some help to connect orphan PRs with JIRA issues
> and close PRs
Hi
I ran the tool dev-tools/scripts/githubPRs.py and JIRA and GitHub tend to
diverge day by day. Need some help to connect orphan PRs with JIRA issues and
close PRs that have a closed JIRA:
PRs lacking JIRA reference in title
#1026: Buffer one record from each shard every 5000 reads to
20 matches
Mail list logo
