Beam High Priority Issue Report (11)

2025-05-27 Thread beamactions
This is your summary of Beam's current high priority issues that may need attention. See https://beam.apache.org/contribute/issue-priorities for the meaning and expectations around issue priorities. Unassigned P1 Issues: https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/28760 [Bug]: EFO Kinesis IO rea

Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread XQ Hu via dev
Hi, Beam developers, I was reviewing the Apache Beam repository statistics on OSS Insight ( https://ossinsight.io/analyze/apache/beam#issues) and wanted to discuss our current issue management strategy (the previous discussion in 2020 is https://lists.apache.org/thread/41yvgw5ymvkkzt3ws1160j58t9hb

Re: Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread Jan Lukavský
Hi XQ, +1 generally, this seems to be the approach many other projects follow, so it seems reasonable. One note - the 7 day deadline feels a little too strict. I'd propose to change this to 150 days + 30 days, the total would be the same, but people can have more time to react. Thanks for th

Re: Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread Danny McCormick via dev
+1 to the proposal. > +1 generally, this seems to be the approach many other projects follow, so it seems reasonable. One note - the 7 day deadline feels a little too strict. I'd propose to change this to 150 days + 30 days, the total would be the same, but people can have more time to react. Thi

Re: Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread Kenneth Knowles
+1 I like 150 days for marking stale, then 30 before closure also. This should help clean up obsolete tickets. However, IMO the incoming bugs being more than we can address is normal for any healthy project. In fact, I think if we see closed bugs > incoming bugs then it could be a sign of usage d

Re: Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread XQ Hu via dev
Thanks a lot for the discussions. I just merged https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/35052 with 150 days (stale) + 30 days (warning). On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:04 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > I like 150 days for marking stale, then 30 before closure also. This > should help clean up obsole

Re: Proposal: Implementing automated stale issue management (173 days inactivity + 7 days warning)

2025-05-27 Thread XQ Hu via dev
Sounds good. Just updated the PR to use 150 days + 30 days. On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:57 AM Danny McCormick via dev < dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: > +1 to the proposal. > > > +1 generally, this seems to be the approach many other projects follow, > so it seems reasonable. One note - the 7 day dea