+1 to bulk commenting on the 274 open PRs with a standard message about the need for new PRs. We already have a "stale-closed" label in GitHub, so if we add that label to all the issues they can safely be closed without information loss. My script https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/dev-tools/scripts/githubPRs.py can probably be tweaked to do these actions. It uses a python GitHub library and already fetches all open PRs, and allows to pass a token, so I guess that the token will also allow edits on behalf of the user.
Jan > 2. des. 2021 kl. 17:55 skrev Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com>: > > In this specific instance, I don't see the harm in leaving these > issues there since the entire repo is essentially an archival artifact > at this point. If we actually want to notify people that "hey your > issue is in a dead zone, do you want to revive it? Here's how ..." we > could maybe generate some emails? Although I really have no idea how > we would accomplish that. > > In general, I'm in favor of cleaning up / closing issues that are > clearly not going to be worked. > > For example in JIRA we have so many old issues that they can clutter > up search results, making it much harder for new contributors > (especially) to find "interesting" issues that might be relevant today > and workable. I have heard various arguments for keeping these old > issues: they represent an historical view of the project; "you never > know" maybe they become relevant again; and this idea of not annoying > people by arbitrarily closing their issue. These all have some > validity, but I we have to strike a balance. I wonder if we can > address them in another way. In JIRA can we keep these old issues > while hiding them from default searches. Can we "archive" old issues > in some way? Maybe there is a "Status" like Archived that is different > from Closed. Anything but Open! > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:15 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: >> >> I understand the frustrations around closing somebody’s PR as stale, but I >> also think that there is value in informing the contributors I this is never >> getting solved/fixed/looked at, if this is still important please go over >> there instead. >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:55 PM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Michael McCandless >>> <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Could we maybe instead bulk-add a comment explaining the split and how to >>>> take the PR forwards if someone (in the future) has itch/time? >>>> >>>> I know we humans love to clean things up, but I think leaving such >>>> "unclean" things open serves an important purpose. They all had >>>> importance to at least one person at one point in time, and likely many of >>>> them are still relevant if they piqued someones curiosity to dig back into >>>> them. Closing them makes them harder to find for the future developer. >>>> >>>> I'm sure some of them are already resolved/duplicates too. If only we >>>> could divine which are which. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> +1, I'd rather not auto-close PRs. I'm always frustrated by this when >>> I see it in other trackers. Is there a rush to close these for some >>> reason? >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
