Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wander4...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > 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. >
Totally agreed. It is very hard to follow the overwhelming flow of github pull requests. On one hand this is great because the project is very active. On the other hand it is very hard to take time to pay attention to everyone. The stale bot is useful only because it bumps up the pr by sending a notification and possibly you find it. I think that we should encourage people to talk about their PRs on the dev@ list. We should add some message on the PR template to advise folks to advertise their patches here. In the stale bot the comment should suggest to the author of the PR to ask for review here on dev@. It will be less frustrating. Like: We are sorry if your patch has not make it yet. Please advertise about your patch on dev@pulsar.apache.org Enrico > 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 > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >
