I like it, helps clean up a lot of noise and the issues that are no longer relevant or important.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:33 PM Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, just wanted to check in how people think the stalebot for issues has > been working out (positive, negative, don't know yet)? It's been running > for about a month. > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:33 PM Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I wrote a comment on the issue, about considering a different exempt list > > for issues vs PRs. > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:07 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I've proposed to add more exempt labels and set the closing timeout to > 28 > >> days here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8084. > >> > >> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 01:35, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > You raise a good point but I don't think leaving issues open with no > >> > response forever is a good solution either. That's probably what would > >> have > >> > happened to your issues if we didn't have a stalebot. The ideal thing > >> is to > >> > strive to respond to every reported issue, which hopefully we can pull > >> > together as a community to do. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 3:22 PM Prashant Deva <prashant.d...@gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > i agree with you, but do consider the following case: > >> > > > >> > > I am new to druid. I report the above 2 bugs. They don’t get a > >> response. > >> > > Then a bot closes them automatically. > >> > > As a new user, I may then not be motivated to report further bugs. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:13 PM Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I think that would be a perfect reason to comment on those issues > >> and > >> > > > mention that they are still relevant. The stalebot message even > >> invites > >> > > you > >> > > > to do so. IMO, one of the services provided by the stalebot is to > >> > remind > >> > > > people to take a look at older issues and check if they are still > >> > > relevant, > >> > > > otherwise they would be likely to sit open forever with nobody > >> > reviewing > >> > > > them. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:06 PM Prashant Deva < > >> prashant.d...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > stalebot just closed my issues 7473 and 7521. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Both bugs are still present. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > they were closed because the bug reports themselves didn’t > >> receive a > >> > > > reply. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Not receiving a reply did not make the bugs go away. Yet due to > >> > > stalebot, > >> > > > > the bugs are now closed. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:28 AM Roman Leventov < > >> > leventov...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that have > >> no > >> > > > > > > constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of > >> feature > >> > > > ideas > >> > > > > > > around that nobody is actively pushing. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have experience as a user (feature asker) of projects which > >> adopt > >> > > > this > >> > > > > > policy and it always feels bad to me when my issue is closed > >> "due > >> > to > >> > > > lack > >> > > > > > of activity". What activity do they expect? I'm not a > developer > >> of > >> > > this > >> > > > > > project so, realistically, I cannot contribute to it. However, > >> the > >> > > > > problem > >> > > > > > is real and it causes real pain when I use the product > (project, > >> > > > library, > >> > > > > > etc). So it always feels to me that the developers just want > to > >> > feel > >> > > > > > comfortable (as described in the stalebot's documentation > cited > >> > above > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > this thread) and see a small number of open issues at the > >> expense > >> > of > >> > > > > > alienating users to some little extent. So, IMO, it's better > to > >> fix > >> > > our > >> > > > > > perception instead about a large and ever-growing number of > >> issues. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "Performance" and "Refactoring" makes more sense to consider > >> > > > evergreen > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then "Improvement" should be there, too ("Performance" and > >> > > > "Refactoring" > >> > > > > > are just special cases of "Improvement"), as well as regular > >> "Area > >> > - > >> > > " > >> > > > > > tags, because "Improvement" is often omitted: generic > >> "improvement" > >> > > is > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > default intention of an issue unless tagged to something > >> different > >> > > > (such > >> > > > > as > >> > > > > > "bug"). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Without that, some perfectly good ideas might be totally > >> > forgotten, > >> > > > > open > >> > > > > > forever but never looked at. I'm ok either way on these two > >> > labels, I > >> > > > > > suppose. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps issue priorities is a better tool for tackling this > >> rather > >> > > than > >> > > > > > regular notification of just the author of the issue. Tags > give > >> > > > > visibility > >> > > > > > for other developers and provide a way to browse the pool of > >> > > impactful > >> > > > > > ideas. Priorities used to be used in the past but then people > >> > stopped > >> > > > > using > >> > > > > > them. The only problem with priorities that I see is that they > >> are > >> > > > > > subjective. "Impact/effort ratio" is something more objective. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 21:07, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I claim that features have a different lifecycle to bugs. > >> There > >> > may > >> > > > not > >> > > > > > be > >> > > > > > > a strong case for doing a particular feature today, but in a > >> > year, > >> > > > > there > >> > > > > > > may be a greater demand. If a bugs are not fixed, their > >> > importance > >> > > > > > usually > >> > > > > > > declines over time. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are people able to vote for features in GitHub issues? Are > >> they > >> > > able > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > vote to them if they are closed? I think it’s useful for > >> people > >> > to > >> > > > > > continue > >> > > > > > > to chime in on features, and eventually build consensus > about > >> > what > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > > > be built. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Perhaps a label “not on roadmap” on a feature is all that is > >> > > > necessary > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > manage people’s expectations. I agree that closing bugs > makes > >> > sense > >> > > > > > because > >> > > > > > > (for some reason!) users assume that developers intend to > fix > >> > every > >> > > > > > single > >> > > > > > > bug. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Julian > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Gian Merlino < > g...@apache.org> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that > >> have no > >> > > > > > > > constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of > >> > feature > >> > > > > ideas > >> > > > > > > > around that nobody is actively pushing. However this > starts > >> to > >> > > > remind > >> > > > > > me > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > the Wikipedia "deletionism vs. inclusionism" debate: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia > >> > > > > > > which > >> > > > > > > > simmers even to this day. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "Performance" and "Refactoring" makes more sense to > consider > >> > > > > evergreen, > >> > > > > > > > although there may still be some benefit in stalebotting > >> them > >> > > > anyway, > >> > > > > > > since > >> > > > > > > > the bot bumps things periodically to encourage > >> reconsideration. > >> > > > > Without > >> > > > > > > > that, some perfectly good ideas might be totally > forgotten, > >> > open > >> > > > > > forever > >> > > > > > > > but never looked at. I'm ok either way on these two > labels, > >> I > >> > > > > suppose. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:36 AM Roman Leventov < > >> > > > > leventov...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I wrote previous messages in this thread before I've > >> > discovered > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > >> stalebot send me more than 100 messages. (That shouldn't > be > >> > > > > surprising > >> > > > > > > >> since I'm the author of 174 open issues in Druid: > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/search?p=1&q=is%3Aopen+author%3Aleventov+is%3Aissue&type=Issues > >> > > > > > > >> ). > >> > > > > > > >> As an experiment, I'll try to go over all notifications > and > >> > post > >> > > > > here > >> > > > > > > how > >> > > > > > > >> many of them can actually be closed now. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> On the other hand, I've realized that a big and a > >> legitimate > >> > > case > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > >> stalebot closing issues are the issues of "Problem > report" > >> > kind > >> > > ( > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/new?assignees=&template=problem_report.md&title= > >> > > > > > > >> ). > >> > > > > > > >> The reasoning is that > >> > > > > > > >> - As time passes, the issue may be fixed in the newer > Druid > >> > > > > versions. > >> > > > > > > >> - The report may be irreproducible or hardly > reproducible, > >> > > > > especially > >> > > > > > if > >> > > > > > > >> the Druid version used is unspecified or there is > otherwise > >> > too > >> > > > > little > >> > > > > > > >> information in the issue. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> "Flaky test" issues are somewhat similar, too. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Jon once suggested to add a "Problem report" tag: > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/61068635cc338dd0da6d43bfca16adf9ccdd3d61e267b598124ca3ad@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E > >> > > > > > > >> . > >> > > > > > > >> We could revive this idea in the form of "Uncategorized > >> > problem > >> > > > > > > report". It > >> > > > > > > >> would be a committer's duty to reassign either to "bug", > >> > > > "invalid", > >> > > > > or > >> > > > > > > >> "won't fix" upon verification. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Then, I suggest that the stalebot only watches > >> "Uncategorized > >> > > > > problem > >> > > > > > > >> report", "Flaky test", and issues without any tags (that > >> would > >> > > > sweep > >> > > > > > all > >> > > > > > > >> old issues which are essentially uncategorized problem > >> > reports, > >> > > as > >> > > > > > well > >> > > > > > > as > >> > > > > > > >> new issues when the authors use the "Other" button > instead > >> of > >> > > > > "Problem > >> > > > > > > >> report" button). > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> I think that the majority of "Feature/Change request", > >> > > "Feature", > >> > > > > > > >> "Refactoring", "Performance", etc. issues would be > >> > "evergreen", > >> > > so > >> > > > > > it's > >> > > > > > > >> more practically to close them only by occasion when > >> someone > >> > > > visits > >> > > > > > > these > >> > > > > > > >> old issues. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 21:57, Gian Merlino < > >> g...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >>> The core idea is that it's good for someone or something > >> to > >> > go > >> > > > > > through > >> > > > > > > >> old > >> > > > > > > >>> issues periodically and clean up anything that's no > longer > >> > > > > relevant, > >> > > > > > > >> since > >> > > > > > > >>> having a bunch of irrelevant issues lying around is poor > >> > > project > >> > > > > > > hygiene. > >> > > > > > > >>> No human is really volunteering for this, hence the bot. > >> The > >> > > fact > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > >>> bumps things before closing them is useful too, since it > >> sort > >> > > of > >> > > > > > forces > >> > > > > > > >>> periodic re-consideration of relevancy. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> The effect should be giving us an > >> > > > > > > >>>>> open issues list that more accurately respects the > >> issues > >> > > that > >> > > > > > people > >> > > > > > > >>> in > >> > > > > > > >>>>> the community feel are important. > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> The list would still be too long to be comprehensible > or > >> > > > > digestible > >> > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > >>>> anybody, nor that anyone is expected to go through the > >> full > >> > > list > >> > > > > at > >> > > > > > > any > >> > > > > > > >>>> time. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> Maybe so, but I would really hope that with a shorter > >> list, > >> > it > >> > > > > could > >> > > > > > > >>> potentially be more digestible. At least wouldn't have a > >> > large > >> > > > > amount > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > >>> irrelevant issues. If you look through our older issues, > >> so > >> > > many > >> > > > of > >> > > > > > > them > >> > > > > > > >>> are irrelevant or questionably relevant to today's > Druid. > >> > This > >> > > is > >> > > > > > fine > >> > > > > > > if > >> > > > > > > >>> nobody ever looks at them, which is probably the case > for > >> > > regular > >> > > > > > > >>> contributors, who I assume mostly interact with issues > >> > through > >> > > > > > > >>> notifications. But it can be misleading to those that > >> don't > >> > pay > >> > > > > > > attention > >> > > > > > > >>> to the project every day. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Personally, I open many issues > >> > > > > > > >>>> which I don't really plan to work on in any foreseeable > >> > > future, > >> > > > > just > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > >>>> record my ideas and thoughts so that they can be > >> discovered > >> > by > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > > > >>>> developers (and myself) later, and referenced to from > >> future > >> > > > > > > >> discussions, > >> > > > > > > >>>> issues, and PRs. I see a real practical value in it, > as I > >> > > > > routinely > >> > > > > > > >> link > >> > > > > > > >>> to > >> > > > > > > >>>> my own old issues (and re-read them, refreshing my old > >> > > thoughts > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>>> topic) in Druid development. I don't want to take on a > >> > burden > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > >>> regularly > >> > > > > > > >>>> repel the stalebot from all of these issues. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> This is a tough one. I did think about it and there are > >> ups > >> > and > >> > > > > > downs. > >> > > > > > > >> The > >> > > > > > > >>> upside of stalebot in this case is that these 'idea and > >> > > thoughts' > >> > > > > > > issues > >> > > > > > > >>> can become irrelevant over time (the underlying area of > >> code > >> > > has > >> > > > > been > >> > > > > > > >>> refactored and nobody updated the issue, etc) and so > it's > >> > good > >> > > to > >> > > > > > close > >> > > > > > > >>> issues that may no longer be relevant. The downside is > >> that > >> > the > >> > > > > 'idea > >> > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > >>> thoughts' issues tend to naturally be dormant for a long > >> > time, > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>> stalebot can be annoying. There is a label "Evergreen" > >> that > >> > can > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > used > >> > > > > > > >> to > >> > > > > > > >>> ward off the stalebot (it will ignore anything with that > >> > label) > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > >> be > >> > > > > > > >>> used to solve the latter problem. It's probably not good > >> to > >> > > have > >> > > > a > >> > > > > > ton > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > >>> issues labeled this way, since they can become > irrelevant > >> > over > >> > > > > time, > >> > > > > > > but > >> > > > > > > >> it > >> > > > > > > >>> is an option. The stalebot can be configured (and is > >> > > configured) > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > >> ignore > >> > > > > > > >>> issues that are part of projects, that have assignees, > or > >> > that > >> > > > have > >> > > > > > > >>> milestones, so those are options too if they make sense. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:07 AM Roman Leventov < > >> > > > > > leventov...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Gian Merlino < > >> g...@apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> The effect should be giving us an > >> > > > > > > >>>>> open issues list that more accurately respects the > >> issues > >> > > that > >> > > > > > people > >> > > > > > > >>> in > >> > > > > > > >>>>> the community feel are important. > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> The list would still be too long to be comprehensible > or > >> > > > > digestible > >> > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > >>>> anybody, nor that anyone is expected to go through the > >> full > >> > > list > >> > > > > at > >> > > > > > > any > >> > > > > > > >>>> time. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> I see the value of nudging PR authors to push their > work > >> > > through > >> > > > > > > rather > >> > > > > > > >>>> than abandon PRs in pursuit of something new, hoping to > >> > return > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>> older > >> > > > > > > >>>> PRs later (which will likely never happen) - that is, > to > >> > avoid > >> > > > > this > >> > > > > > > >>>> psychological fallacy. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> But I don't see the same value for issues. Personally, > I > >> > open > >> > > > many > >> > > > > > > >> issues > >> > > > > > > >>>> which I don't really plan to work on in any foreseeable > >> > > future, > >> > > > > just > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > >>>> record my ideas and thoughts so that they can be > >> discovered > >> > by > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > > > >>>> developers (and myself) later, and referenced to from > >> future > >> > > > > > > >> discussions, > >> > > > > > > >>>> issues, and PRs. I see a real practical value in it, > as I > >> > > > > routinely > >> > > > > > > >> link > >> > > > > > > >>> to > >> > > > > > > >>>> my own old issues (and re-read them, refreshing my old > >> > > thoughts > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>>> topic) in Druid development. I don't want to take on a > >> > burden > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > >>> regularly > >> > > > > > > >>>> repel the stalebot from all of these issues. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> As more and more work piles up, it becomes paralyzing. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> What I suggest is to embrace the fact that open issues > >> list > >> > > will > >> > > > > > grow > >> > > > > > > >> as > >> > > > > > > >>>> long as the project exists and don't be paralyzed. Why > >> > would a > >> > > > > > number > >> > > > > > > >> in > >> > > > > > > >>> a > >> > > > > > > >>>> circle in Github interface paralyze anybody from doing > >> work, > >> > > > > anyway? > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Just making decisions about what work should and > >> shouldn't > >> > > get > >> > > > > > > >>>>> done can exhaust all available resources. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> This statement doesn't make sense to me as well as the > >> > > previous > >> > > > > > one. I > >> > > > > > > >>>> actually agree that priorities and focus is an > important > >> > issue > >> > > > > for a > >> > > > > > > >>>> project like Druid where there are a lot of directions > in > >> > > which > >> > > > it > >> > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > >> be > >> > > > > > > >>>> improved and it's hard to choose (predict) the > direction > >> > with > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > >> highest > >> > > > > > > >>>> ROI. But I don't see how going down from 1000 to 100 > open > >> > > issues > >> > > > > > would > >> > > > > > > >>> help > >> > > > > > > >>>> with this challenge at all. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> As a compromise approach, I suggest to auto-tag issues > as > >> > > > > "Shelved", > >> > > > > > > >>>> although, personally, I don't see the point in that > >> either, > >> > > but > >> > > > if > >> > > > > > > >> other > >> > > > > > > >>>> people want to see if there is any recent activity on > the > >> > > issue, > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > > > >> might > >> > > > > > > >>>> be helpful. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org > >> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Prashant > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Prashant > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
