On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 06:52:42AM -0700, Rebecca Cran wrote: > On 11/5/24 6:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 08:34:34PM -0600, Rebecca Cran wrote: > > > See the attached screenshot or > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5907#issuecomment-2408745999 . > > > > > > The PR was marked stale by the bot and the PR author only responded two > > > weeks later - which would have been one week too late. > > > > > > Fortunately I noticed and commented to keep it open, but I think we should > > > reconsider the use of the stale bot. > > Why is that a problem? I still get email notifications in case someone > > adds a comment to a PR in closed (or merged) state, so updates do not go > > unnoticed. Also it is always possible to re-open closed PRs. > > When I had one of my PRs auto-closed a few months ago I wasn't able to > re-open it. But that might have been because it was during the freeze. > > I was told to create a new PR instead.
Hmm. Re-opening not working is bad because we loose the old discussions when creating a new PR. But having lots of stale PRs in the list is not nice either. I don't like the idea to make the intervals *much* longer. Having only one week between stale warning and closing is very short, that is easily missed when going on vacation, extending that (say a month) looks sensible to me. The 60 days for "stale due to inactivity" looks fine to me. I'd leave that as-is, or maybe extend it a bit to match release cycle length (3 months). Is it possible to tag PRs as stale for other reasons? One obvious candidate would be if it can not be merged any more, i.e. when mergify asks for a rebase. take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#120732): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/120732 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109271104/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
