Hi Penghui, Thanks for your feedback! Comments inline:
> If we removed the stale label, how can we know which issues/PRs are active? GitHub Search supports filter by updated time: * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3E2022-07-01 updated in this month * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2022-07-01 recently created You can see more information at: * Understanding the search syntax https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/getting-started-with-searching-on-github/understanding-the-search-syntax * Searching issues and pull requests https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/searching-on-github/searching-issues-and-pull-requests > IMO, it is just a tool that can help us to get a list of all active PRs and issues. Yes. We can achieve this goal as mentioned above in this mail, while a box is unfriendly for interaction and wastes CI resources. Besides, we have even two labels (Stale, lifecycle/stale). Project entropy increases if we treat broken windows as not a big deal. Best, tison. PengHui Li <codelipeng...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月30日周六 09:38写道： > Hi tison, > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion. > > The stale label can help contributors to filter out inactive PRs and > issues(no active comments for more than a month) > So that the contributors can focus on the active issues and PRs. > > I think we should start to consider closing the issues and PRs with the > stale label manually. > If we removed the stale label, how can we know which issues/PRs are active? > > > From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire > more reviewers act on PRs > > Totally agree, the purpose of the stale label is to help contributors > participate in the review work of active PRs. > IMO, it is just a tool that can help us to get a list of all active PRs > and issues. > > Best, > Penghui > On Jul 29, 2022, 23:09 +0800, tison <wander4...@gmail.com>, wrote: > > 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 >
