A brief update here: At the start of December when I started this thread we had almost 500 open PRs. Now that the Stale workflow has had time to catch up, we're down to ~280 open PRs.
More impressive than the number of stale PRs that got closed <https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3AStale+is%3Aclosed> is how many PRs are active with relatively recent activity. It's a testament to how active this project is. On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Nicholas Chammas < nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs: > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26877 > > 2019년 12월 8일 (일) 오전 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > >> It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as >> Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. >> I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable. >> >> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>님이 작성: >> >>> lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? >>> >>> When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: >>> >>> 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a >>> review, I excluded it from stale PR list. >>> 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. >>> 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. >>> >>> Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. >>> What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and >>> which of them do you plan to add? >>> >>> I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time >>> to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable >>> so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to >>> close some good and worthy PRs. >>> >>> >>> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>님이 작성: >>> >>>> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I >>>> assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think >>>> there's a policy against it or anything. >>>> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >>>> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >>>> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >>>> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>>>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >>>>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>>>> like this. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are >>>>> no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests >>>>>> in Github? >>>>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe >>>>>> 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it >>>>>> can't >>>>>> be reopened. >>>>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>>>>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s that topic again. 😄 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a >>>>>>> year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us >>>>>>> the ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>
