For example, even if we close (and lock?) the issue or pull request after a certain interval, the stale bot helps on transforming issues state with a clear rule (although a human action could be more friendly).
Instead, we leave a comment and add a label which information can be filtered as the search query mentioned above. I'm curious if our members treat an issue with/without the stale label differently. If not, I don't see the value we gain from running workflows and potentially spamming comments. Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月30日周六 23:00写道： > Hi Dave, > > > The other aspect is it would be helpful if many Pulsar committers would > spend effort every few weeks reviewing issues and PRs to engage the > community. > > Agree. I'll try to help with reviewing issues and PRs as I handled > backlogs for the Apache Curator project. > > The topic here is whether "the stale bot" helps or it creates frustration, > spamming comments, and consumes resources unnecessarily. We should always > handle backlogs in some way, but may not with a stale bot. > > Best, > tison. > > > Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> 于2022年7月30日周六 22:50写道： > >> Perhaps 30 days is too quick? 90 days might be better. >> >> Also in cases like this one it’s likely that a PR would get more >> discussion. >> >> The other aspect is it would be helpful if many Pulsar committers would >> spend effort every few weeks reviewing issues and PRs to engage the >> community. >> >> All the best, >> Dave >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Jul 30, 2022, at 9:59 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >>
