Great, thanks Nic! +1 I think we should add a 'stale' label to issues we close this way, just so that if anyone finds a closed issue that might still apply (or someone wants to comb through these) we can differentiate them from other closed issues.
I also think that we can probably just close everything pre 1.0 ~537 issues: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Farrow+created%3A%3C2020-07-21+type%3Aissue+state%3Aopen&type=issues&ref=advsearch Am Di., 17. Juni 2025 um 15:32 Uhr schrieb Alenka Frim <frim.ale...@gmail.com>: > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
