+1 for the stable bot, as it will help bring valuable PR out to be reviewed.
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> wrote: > > +1 I'm in favor of the Stale bot. > > We use the Stalebot at Apache Airflow as well, and it really helps smoothen > the reviewing process. Keep in mind that the number of PR's processed by > the Stalebot is limited at each run. So you won't get a gazillion > notifications, but just a few every couple of days. Just enough to prune > the list of PR's. > Most of the really old PR's are not relevant anymore, so its good practice > to close these. If the person who still thinks it is relevant, the PR will > be revisited and can still be considered merging. Otherwise, the PR will be > closed by the bot. There is no value in having the old PR's hanging around. > Having 500 open PR's doesn't look really good at the project in my opinion. > My suggestion would be to give it a try. > > Cheers, Fokko > > Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 12:45 schreef Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>: > >>> The bot will remind both reviewers and contributors that they have to >> be active on a PR, I found that useful on some PRs that I had open at Beam >> >> I don't think we really want every contributor bumping their PR >> regularly. This will create unbearable noise and, if they actually >> update it, will lead to them wasting a lot of time since we won't >> suddenly start reviewing it. >> >> On 10.01.2019 12:06, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >>> For reference, this is the older staleness discussion: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d53bee8431776f38ebaf8f5678b1ffd9513cd65ce15d821bbdca95aa@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E >> < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d53bee8431776f38ebaf8f5678b1ffd9513cd65ce15d821bbdca95aa@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E >>> >>> >>> My main arguments for automatic closing of PRs are: >>> >>> - This will eventually close out old, stale PRs, making the number we >> see in Github better reflect the actual state >>> - The bot will remind both reviewers and contributors that they have >> to be active on a PR, I found that useful on some PRs that I had open at >> Beam >>> >>> Aljoscha >>> >>>> On 10. Jan 2019, at 11:21, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Without any new argument for doing so, I'm still against it. >>>> >>>> On 10.01.2019 09:54, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I know we had similar discussions in the past but I’d like to bring up >> this topic again. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about adding a stale bot ( >> https://probot.github.io/apps/stale/ <https://probot.github.io/apps/stale/>) >> to our Github Repo? This would automatically nag about stale PRs and close >> them after a (configurable) time of inactivity. This would do two things: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Clean up old PRs that truly are outdated and stale >>>>> (2) Remind both contributor and reviewers about PRs that are still >> good and are on the verge of getting stale, thus potentially speeding up >> review or facilitating it in the first place >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Aljoscha >>>> >>> >> >>
