Thank you all for the feedback on the proposal. I unassigned 371 idle (not
updated within past 90 days) issues on 2022-07-12 [1]. It doesn't appear
that this action has caused problems or confusion - please let me know if
I've missed anything. There are currently an additional 31 issues that are
now considered idle, and I'll update those in batch as well [2].

I've created a PR to document this project policy [3].

In doing this, it was noted that issues that are unassigned should probably
not be left in a status of "In Progress". The PR addresses this, specifying
that any issue that is "In Progress" should have an assignee, and issues
lacking an assignee may be set back to a status of "Open" for consistency.

Additionally, the PR proposes standardization of the usage of status and
resolution code field values.

Please comment on the PR as appropriate - it feels any concerns or
suggestions are better coordinated there than via email.

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20comment%20~%20%22This%20issue%20was%20last%20updated%20over%2090%20days%20ago%2C%20which%20may%20be%20an%20indication%20it%20is%20no%20longer%20being%20actively%20worked.%22%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC
[2]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20%20AND%20assignee%20IS%20NOT%20EMPTY%20AND%20updated%20%3C%20-90d
[3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/13781

Thanks,

Todd Farmer


On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:51 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:49:28 -0600
> Todd Farmer <t...@voltrondata.com> wrote:
> >
> > In summary, here are the actions I propose:
> >
> > 1. Establish a threshold at which assigned, idle issues should be
> > unassigned and comment added.
> > 2. Define that threshold to be 90 days.
> > 3. Document the above as a project policy for issue handling (PR against
> > docs)
> > 4. Automate 1 and 2 above.
> >
> > Thoughts on this?
>
> +1 from me. This will be a welcome improvement IMHO.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
>

Reply via email to