Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-03-04 Thread PengHui Li
Hi all, We have completed the Stale label for the PRs and issues. So that, we can focus on the active PRs[1] and active issues[2]. Thanks for the great work, yaaln. If you are interested in the PR review and give an answer to the issue, it's a good start to let us focus on the active PRs and iss

Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-02-23 Thread PengHui Li
> This pr https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14390 can help us. If any issue or pr had no activity for 30 days, Github action will tag a Stale label with it. Thanks for the great work, I have merged the PR. Penghui On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 1:11 AM * yaalsn wrote: > Hi All, > > This pr https:

RE: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-02-23 Thread * yaalsn
Hi All, This pr https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14390 can help us. If any issue or pr had no activity for 30 days, Github action will tag a Stale label with it. On 2022/01/12 16:15:16 PengHui Li wrote: > Hi Pulsar Community, > > I want to start a discussion about introducing an icebox lab

Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-01-12 Thread Enrico Olivelli
I am +1 with the initiative. I would like to add a suggestion, maybe I am exaggerating... Why not "closing" those PRs ? Closing a PR does not mean to delete it btw I am fine with the process you suggested Enrico Il giorno mer 12 gen 2022 alle ore 18:54 Michael Marshall ha scritto: > > > Ok, bo

Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-01-12 Thread Michael Marshall
> Ok, both "status/stale" and "status/inactive” looks good. Let's use > "status/inactive” +1 - I agree with using "status/inactive" for these issues/PRs. >> Can the time period be made a configuration parameter to make it easy to adjust? >Yes, we can easy to change the CI params. I agree with se

Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-01-12 Thread PengHui Li
> I used the "status/stale" label for some old PRs that I closed. I think that "status/inactive” would be a more descriptive label than “icebox”. Ok, both "status/stale" and "status/inactive” looks good. Let's use "status/inactive” > Can the time period be made a configuration parameter to make

Re: [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-01-12 Thread Dave Fisher
> On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, PengHui Li wrote: > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > I want to start a discussion about introducing an icebox label that can be > added to > the issue or PR by pulsar bot automatically to help us can focus on the > active PRs > and issue. To avoid missing merge PRs, re

[DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks

2022-01-12 Thread PengHui Li
Hi Pulsar Community, I want to start a discussion about introducing an icebox label that can be added to the issue or PR by pulsar bot automatically to help us can focus on the active PRs and issue. To avoid missing merge PRs, review PRs, triage issues. It looks like the following: 1. If the iss