Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月30日周六 13:20写道： > 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 >> >
