+1 good idea On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:15 PM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for this enhancement. > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:19 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1, sounds like a good idea to clean up stale PRs. >> >> -Jack >> >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:52 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I definitely need something to keep emailing me, so I support this. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> We have several examples where we have some kind of "stale" PRs, >>>> either because we are waiting for a review, or we are waiting for >>>> changes from the contributor. >>>> >>>> We are already using two jobs around issues/PRs: >>>> - labeler to label PRs depending of the Iceberg modules change scope >>>> - stale to stale/close issues (we don't touch PRs in stale job today) >>>> >>>> In order to "improve" the PRs flow, I would like to propose the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> 1. We keep our labeler as it is. I propose to add >>>> .github/reviewers.yml to automatically add reviewers depending on the >>>> labels. It would look like (this is just an example, I will do a more >>>> concrete setup in a PR if there are no objection): >>>> >>>> labels: >>>> - name: API >>>> reviewers: >>>> - rdblue >>>> - aokolnychyi >>>> - Fokko >>>> exclusionList: [] >>>> - name: CORE >>>> reviewers: >>>> - rdblue >>>> - Fokko >>>> - nastra >>>> exclusionList: [] >>>> - name: FLINK >>>> reviewers: >>>> - nastra >>>> exclusionList: [] >>>> ... >>>> fallbackReviewers: >>>> - rdblue >>>> - Fokko >>>> - nastra >>>> - jbonofre >>>> >>>> 2. We can update the stale job to add a reminder message to >>>> reviewer/contributor on PR. For instance, something like: >>>> >>>> name: Mark and close stale issues and pull requests >>>> >>>> on: >>>> schedule: >>>> - cron: '0 0 * * *' >>>> workflow_dispatch: >>>> >>>> permissions: read-all >>>> jobs: >>>> stale: >>>> runs-on: ubuntu-latest >>>> permissions: >>>> issues: write >>>> pull-requests: write >>>> steps: >>>> - uses: actions/stale@v9 >>>> with: >>>> stale-issue-label: 'stale' >>>> exempt-issue-labels: 'not-stale' >>>> days-before-issue-stale: 180 >>>> days-before-issue-close: 14 >>>> stale-issue-message: > >>>> This issue has been automatically marked as stale because >>>> it has been open for 180 days >>>> with no activity. It will be closed in the next 14 days if >>>> no further activity occurs. To >>>> permanently prevent this issue from being considered >>>> stale, add the label 'not-stale', >>>> but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible. >>>> close-issue-message: > >>>> This issue has been closed because it has not received any >>>> activity in the last 14 days >>>> since being marked as 'stale' >>>> stale-pr-message: 'This pull request has been marked as >>>> stale due to 15 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no >>>> further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull >>>> request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, >>>> you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss >>>> it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your >>>> contributions.' >>>> close-pr-message: 'This pull request has been closed due to >>>> lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request >>>> requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.' >>>> stale-pr-label: 'stale' >>>> days-before-pr-stale: 15 >>>> days-before-pr-close: 7 >>>> exempt-pr-labels: "pinned,security" >>>> operations-per-run: 100 >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> PS: I did set up this on Apache Beam for example, and we did speed up >>>> the review and PR flows. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>> -- John Zhuge
