Sounds great! I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

V V tor., 17. jun. 2025 ob 14:07 je oseba Nic Crane <thisis...@gmail.com>
napisala:

> Great question - there are currently 380 issues open without those labels
> (well, 379 as I shame-updated one of my own as I wrote this!) so there's
> another job of going through those.  I can look to do that before the
> issues sweep I've proposed in this thread, as it might be possible to at
> least partially automate it (e.g. docs ones are likely to be enhancements,
> there are many "task" ones which are more like enhancements, if the word
> "improve" is in the title, it's probably an enhancement, etc).
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 12:41, Alenka Frim <frim.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Thank you for taking on this task!
> >
> > One question that just came to mind: are there many issues without any
> > label (Improvement, Bug, or User question) that could be classified as
> > stale?
> >
> > Alenka
> >
> > V V tor., 17. jun. 2025 ob 12:40 je oseba Nic Crane <thisis...@gmail.com
> >
> > napisala:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I'm having a bit of a tidy up of the monorepo and would like to check
> in
> > > with folks before making a move.
> > >
> > > As of this moment, we have 345 open PRs and 4188 open issues.  This
> > number
> > > was higher a week ago, but I've been making some effort to identify and
> > > close stale issues.
> > >
> > > There are many PRs which appear abandoned - no activity in the past 12
> > > months or would require significant refactoring or resolving of git
> > > conflicts as the codebase has moved on significantly.
> > >
> > > I'd like to take the following actions:
> > >
> > > Category: 1 - PRs - haven't been commented on or touched in the past 12
> > > months (137 at present; 40% of open PRs)[1]
> > > Classification: Possibly abandoned
> > > Reason: Creates noise or impression the issue is being worked on
> > > Response: Close these with the message "Closing because it has been
> > > untouched for a year, which may be an indication it's not longer being
> > > actively worked on.  Feel free to re-open if it is still being worked
> > on!"
> > >
> > > Category: 2 - Issues - improvements that haven't been commented on in
> > over
> > > 3 years  (498; 12% if open issues)
> > > Classification: May or may not still be things we'd like to implement
> in
> > > future, unclear
> > > Reason: Gives the impression that items are currently on someone's
> > roadmap,
> > > may prevent user making feature request for it
> > > Reponse: Comment on these issues with warning that will be closed in 30
> > > days if no comment saying otherwise. Close unanswered issues after 30
> > days.
> > >
> > > Category: 3 - Issues - user questions with no ongoing conversation for
> > over
> > > 12 months (107; 3% of open issues)[3]
> > > Classification: Unclear if user still needs helps
> > > Reason: Adds to repo noise
> > > Reponse: Comment on these issues with warning that will be closed in 30
> > > days if no comment saying otherwise. Close unanswered issues after 30
> > days.
> > > Manually update to "improvement" if it's now a feature update or docs
> > > change needed.
> > >
> > > Things I've intentionally left out here:
> > > 1. Bug tickets - I'd like to come back to these in a later discussion
> > > 2. Automation of this on a regular basis - if we go ahead, I'd like to
> > do a
> > > first pass and see how much response we get to closure warning tickets,
> > and
> > > then open a new discussion
> > >
> > > Any objections to this, or anything we'd like to discuss/change here?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Nic
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues?q=is%3Apr%20state%3Aopen%20%20updated%3A%3C%40today-1y
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20%20updated%3A%3C%40today-3y%20label%3A%22Type%3A%20enhancement%22
> > > [3]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20%20updated%3A%3C%40today-1y%20label%3A%22Type%3A%20usage%22
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to