I think the automatic closing is an integral part, without it we would never close those stale PRs that we have lying around from 2015 and 2016.
I would suggest to set the staleness interval quite high, say 2 months. Thus initially the bot would mainly close very old PRs and we shouldn’t even notice it on day-to-day PRs. It seems there is a larger consensus for adding the PR bot. By the way, keep in mind that we can always disable the bot again if we don’t like it. > On 14. Jan 2019, at 03:33, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 to the bot, but -1 to the automatically closing PR behavior. > > Can we just use the bolt to detect and tag the PR with stale flag and leave > the decision whether to close the PR to the author? > > Best, > Kurt > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:49 PM Kostas Kloudas <k.klou...@da-platform.com> > wrote: > >> +1 to try the bot. >> >> It may, at first, seem less empathetic than a solution that involves a >> human monitoring the PRs, >> but, in essence, having a PR stale for months (or even years) is at least >> as discouraging for a >> new contributor. >> >> Labels could further reduce the problem of noise, but I think that this >> "noise" is a necessary evil >> during the "transition period" of moving from the current situation to one >> with cleaner PR backlog. >> >> Cheers, >> Kostas >> >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 1:02 PM Dominik Wosiński <wos...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Hey, >>>> >>> I agree with Timo here that we should introduce labels that will improve >>> communication for PRs. IMHO this will show what percentage of PRs is >> really >>> stale and not just abandoned due to the misunderstanding or other >>> communication issues. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Dom. >>> >>
