I am +1 with the initiative. I would like to add a suggestion, maybe I am exaggerating... Why not "closing" those PRs ? Closing a PR does not mean to delete it
btw I am fine with the process you suggested Enrico Il giorno mer 12 gen 2022 alle ore 18:54 Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > Ok, both "status/stale" and "status/inactive” looks good. Let's use > > "status/inactive” > > +1 - I agree with using "status/inactive" for these issues/PRs. > > >> Can the time period be made a configuration parameter to make it easy to > adjust? > >Yes, we can easy to change the CI params. > > I agree with setting it to 4 weeks as an initial value, and it's good > that it'll be easily tunable. > > Overall, +1 for adding automated labeling--I think it will help > reviewers prioritize which issues/PRs they review. > > Thanks for moving this discussion forward, Penghui. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:04 AM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
