> I used the "status/stale" label for some old PRs that I closed.
I think that "status/inactive” would be a more descriptive label than “icebox”. Ok, both "status/stale" and "status/inactive” looks good. Let's use "status/inactive” > Can the time period be made a configuration parameter to make it easy to adjust? Yes, we can easy to change the CI params. Thank you Dave for the quick response. Penghui On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:48 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > I want to start a discussion about introducing an icebox label that can > be > > added to > > the issue or PR by pulsar bot automatically to help us can focus on the > > active PRs > > and issue. To avoid missing merge PRs, review PRs, triage issues. > > I used the "status/stale" label for some old PRs that I closed. > > I think that "status/inactive” would be a more descriptive label than > “icebox”. > > > > > It looks like the following: > > > > 1. If the issue or PR is inactive for more than 4 weeks, the pulsar bot > add > > the icebox label > > 2. If the issue or PR is re-active again, the pulsar bot remove the > icebox > > label > > > > How to determine the PR or issue is inactive? > > > > 1. No comments for 4 weeks. > > 2. No code review(approve, comment, or change request) for 4 weeks. > > 3. No commits for 4 weeks. > > 4. No description update for 4 weeks. > > Can the time period be made a configuration parameter to make it easy to > adjust? > > > > > How to determine the PR or issue is re-inactive? > > > > With the icebox label first and: > > > > 1. New comment added > > 2. New commits pushed > > 3. Description updated > > 4. New code review updates > > > > Note: all the approved PRs we should not add the icebox label > > > > This will help us to focus on the active issues and PRs so that we can > > track the active issues and PRs better first. After we get this part done > > (maybe keep active opened PR under 20 and active opened issue under 50?), > > we can move forward to continue to handle the stale PRs (already > discussed > > in https://lists.apache.org/thread/k7lyw0q0fyc729w0fqlj5vqng5ny63f2). > > Great initiative! > > +1 > > All the best, > Dave > > > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > >
