Hi everyone, It's been a while since we talked about the issue triage process. Currently our process involves a lot of manual work of pinging issue authors and I'm looking to automate some of it.
Here are my suggestions: 1. add a new bot automation to detect core bug issues (kind:bug, area:code) that are over 1 year old *without any activity*. The bot will add a comment asking the user to check the issue against the latest Airflow version and assign a "pending-response" label. If the user will not respond the issue will be marked stale and will be closed by our current stale bot automation. I suggest 1 year here because in 1 year we usually have 3 feature releases + many bug fixes which contain a lot of fixes. We don't normally go back to check bugs on older versions unless reporting as reproducible on the latest version. There can be 2 outcomes of this: - The author will comment and say it is reproducible in that case we will assign the updated affected_version label and the issue will be bumped up. - The author will not comment. In that case we can assume the problem is fixed/not relevant and the issue will be closed. 2. similar to (1) for providers with labels (kind:bug, area:provider) and with a shortened time period of 6 months as providers release frequently. 3. similar to (1) for airflow-client-python <https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-python/issues> and airflow-client-go <https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-go> with no labels and period of 6 months as well. 4. On another front, we sometimes miss the triage of new issues. My suggestion is that any new issue opened will automatically have a needs-triage label (this is practice several other projects use) That way we can easily filter the list of issues that need first review. When triaging the issue we will remove the label and assign proper ones (good first issue, area, kind, etc..) What do others think? Elad
