I carry on my +1 vote from the previous discussion. Piotrek
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:36, qi luo <luoqi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
