AM Fangjin Yang wrote:
> I like it, helps clean up a lot of noise and the issues that are no longer
> relevant or important.
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:33 PM Gian Merlino wrote:
>
> > Hi, just wanted to check in how people think the stalebot for issues has
> > been w
I like it, helps clean up a lot of noise and the issues that are no longer
relevant or important.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:33 PM Gian Merlino wrote:
> Hi, just wanted to check in how people think the stalebot for issues has
> been working out (positive, negative, don't know yet)
Hi, just wanted to check in how people think the stalebot for issues has
been working out (positive, negative, don't know yet)? It's been running
for about a month.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:33 PM Gian Merlino wrote:
> I wrote a comment on the issue, about considering a differen
I wrote a comment on the issue, about considering a different exempt list
for issues vs PRs.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:07 AM Roman Leventov
wrote:
> I've proposed to add more exempt labels and set the closing timeout to 28
> days here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8084.
>
> On
I've proposed to add more exempt labels and set the closing timeout to 28
days here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8084.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 01:35, Gian Merlino wrote:
> You raise a good point but I don't think leaving issues open with no
> response forever is a good solution
You raise a good point but I don't think leaving issues open with no
response forever is a good solution either. That's probably what would have
happened to your issues if we didn't have a stalebot. The ideal thing is to
strive to respond to every reported issue, which hopefully we can pull
togethe
i agree with you, but do consider the following case:
I am new to druid. I report the above 2 bugs. They don’t get a response.
Then a bot closes them automatically.
As a new user, I may then not be motivated to report further bugs.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:13 PM Gian Merlino wrote:
> I think
I think that would be a perfect reason to comment on those issues and
mention that they are still relevant. The stalebot message even invites you
to do so. IMO, one of the services provided by the stalebot is to remind
people to take a look at older issues and check if they are still relevant,
othe
stalebot just closed my issues 7473 and 7521.
Both bugs are still present.
they were closed because the bug reports themselves didn’t receive a reply.
Not receiving a reply did not make the bugs go away. Yet due to stalebot,
the bugs are now closed.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:28 AM Roman Levent
> To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that have no
> constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of feature ideas
> around that nobody is actively pushing.
I have experience as a user (feature asker) of projects which adopt this
policy and it always feels bad to me when m
I claim that features have a different lifecycle to bugs. There may not be a
strong case for doing a particular feature today, but in a year, there may be a
greater demand. If a bugs are not fixed, their importance usually declines over
time.
Are people able to vote for features in GitHub issue
To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that have no
constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of feature ideas
around that nobody is actively pushing. However this starts to remind me of
the Wikipedia "deletionism vs. inclusionism" debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dele
I wrote previous messages in this thread before I've discovered that the
stalebot send me more than 100 messages. (That shouldn't be surprising
since I'm the author of 174 open issues in Druid:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/search?p=1&q=is%3Aopen+author%3Aleventov+is%3Aissue&type=Issues
The core idea is that it's good for someone or something to go through old
issues periodically and clean up anything that's no longer relevant, since
having a bunch of irrelevant issues lying around is poor project hygiene.
No human is really volunteering for this, hence the bot. The fact that it
b
Roman - I don't believe a compromise is required here and I am strongly in
favor of Gian's approach.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:07 AM Roman Leventov
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Gian Merlino wrote:
>
> > The effect should be giving us an
> > open issues list that more accurately respec
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Gian Merlino wrote:
> The effect should be giving us an
> open issues list that more accurately respects the issues that people in
> the community feel are important.
>
The list would still be too long to be comprehensible or digestible for
anybody, nor that anyone
uid
> development experience better?
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 23:54, Gian Merlino wrote:
>
> > By the way, I do think it makes sense to have a stalebot for issues.
> Right
> > now we have over 1000 open issues and I doubt anyone is actively
> reviewing
> > them.
What's the purpose of closing old issues? How does it make the Druid
development experience better?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 23:54, Gian Merlino wrote:
> By the way, I do think it makes sense to have a stalebot for issues. Right
> now we have over 1000 open issues and I doubt anyone
By the way, I do think it makes sense to have a stalebot for issues. Right
now we have over 1000 open issues and I doubt anyone is actively reviewing
them. IMO it would be better to keep the list shorter, to things where the
original filer is still actively interested in keeping them alive. But I
There's been some discussion on GitHub about enabling stalebot (which we
use for PRs) for issues as well. Please check this PR out if you are
interested: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7936. It's a
follow up to https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7927, which is
also recen
20 matches
Mail list logo
