Hi, Previous discussion:
* [DISCUSS] How to handle stale PRs [1] * [DISCUSS] Add icebox label for issues and PRs that have been inactive for more than 4 weeks [2] I notice that over 80% (1527/1891 ATM) issues are marked as stable but nothing happens later. In an offline discussion with @codelipenghui I learned that we ever wanted to focus on non-stable issues to handle more inputs but it seems now we don't achieve this goal. Refrain my comment in [1] that: > From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire more reviewers act on PRs. > Instead of talking about how to do it, reviewing one PR now can help the case. > Also, it's reasonable to close inactive PR if there is a successor. But do not let a bot do it, which will create many corner (bad) cases. I observe that those stale comments like a spammer in some thread[3][4] and IIRC some audiences reacted with negative emoji to those comments. Thus, I'd like to know whether you gain some value from the stale bot. To me, it seems a potential spammer, frustration maker, and resource consumer (we run a workflow to label them, and even tried to optimize its resource occupation[5]). Best, tison. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/xxmxwnhnlcptv8wr73200qvprnvrfjt1 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0lm9tyjqtgtvwkfowkfhbxy24nh8tyxh [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15100 [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13864 [5] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14466
