You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> on 2022/08/01 03:41:48 UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] Does stale bot make value for you?

Hi tison,

Good catch! I also noticed some issues with a stable label and a no
activity commit message. This is going to add a lot of useless information
to the issue.

I don't recommend leaving a commit message.

> 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).

We can use the bot to mark the issue or PR but don't leave a commit
message, and then it's up to the committer/PMC to decide whether to close
it or continue handling it.

Thanks,
Zixuan

Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月31日周日 01:39写道：

> Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions:
> > >> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > tison.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > tison <wa...@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 <co...@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 <wa...@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
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Does stale bot make value for you?

Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
A good example is Apache SkyWalking who has less than 100 issues. If we
reach similar status, we don't have to worry about stale bot at all and
even simply remove it - our committers should be able to handle such
traffic.

Best,
tison.


tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月9日周二 23:18写道：

> After a discussion with @codelipenghui we agree that spending time on
> handling issues is better than writing more automation or rules.
>
> One thing to help us handle the backlog is close stale issues directly as
> not planned[1]. As committers can be confident close stale issues, we can
> significantly reduce the backlog.
>
> I will send a dedicated mail with title "[COMMITTER ATTENTION] You can
> close stale issues as not planned" tomorrow.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
> [1]
> https://github.blog/changelog/2022-03-10-the-new-github-issues-march-10th-update/#%F0%9F%95%B5%F0%9F%8F%BD%E2%99%80%EF%B8%8F-issue-closed-reasons
>
>
> Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月2日周二 10:30写道：
>
>> I agreed with @tison, LGTM
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Zixuan
>>
>>
>> tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 23:07写道：
>>
>> > Sum up the ideas above:
>> >
>> > * Keep it as is @penghui
>> > * Extend the interval @dave
>> > * Change the message @eolivelli
>> > * Remove the message @zixuan
>> >
>> > I may try to remove the stale bot at the beginning, but when I consider
>> it
>> > more constructively, the goal here is that we'd like to nudge the
>> ping-pong
>> > circle between the author and the reviewer.
>> >
>> > So I'd like to prototype a feature based on pulsarbot, simulate ASF
>> INFRA's
>> > waiting-for-user, waiting-for-infra cycle to react to:
>> >
>> > /pulsarbot waiting-for-author
>> > /pulsarbot waiting-for-reviewer
>> >
>> > ... which labels the issue. The original stale logic can be integrated
>> into
>> > waiting-for-reviewer, which is better than "you are stale/inactive".
>> Then a
>> > reviewer can label it as waiting-for-author so that we learn the state
>> and
>> > the stale bot will skip it.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > tison.
>> >
>> >
>> > Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 11:42写道：
>> >
>> > > Hi tison,
>> > >
>> > > Good catch! I also noticed some issues with a stable label and a no
>> > > activity commit message. This is going to add a lot of useless
>> > information
>> > > to the issue.
>> > >
>> > > I don't recommend leaving a commit message.
>> > >
>> > > > 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).
>> > >
>> > > We can use the bot to mark the issue or PR but don't leave a commit
>> > > message, and then it's up to the committer/PMC to decide whether to
>> close
>> > > it or continue handling it.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Zixuan
>> > >
>> > > Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月31日周日 01:39写道：
>> > >
>> > > > Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Best,
>> > > > > >> > tison.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > tison <wa...@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 <co...@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 <wander4096@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
>> > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Does stale bot make value for you?

Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
After a discussion with @codelipenghui we agree that spending time on
handling issues is better than writing more automation or rules.

One thing to help us handle the backlog is close stale issues directly as
not planned[1]. As committers can be confident close stale issues, we can
significantly reduce the backlog.

I will send a dedicated mail with title "[COMMITTER ATTENTION] You can
close stale issues as not planned" tomorrow.

Best,
tison.

[1]
https://github.blog/changelog/2022-03-10-the-new-github-issues-march-10th-update/#%F0%9F%95%B5%F0%9F%8F%BD%E2%99%80%EF%B8%8F-issue-closed-reasons


Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月2日周二 10:30写道：

> I agreed with @tison, LGTM
>
> Thanks,
> Zixuan
>
>
> tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 23:07写道：
>
> > Sum up the ideas above:
> >
> > * Keep it as is @penghui
> > * Extend the interval @dave
> > * Change the message @eolivelli
> > * Remove the message @zixuan
> >
> > I may try to remove the stale bot at the beginning, but when I consider
> it
> > more constructively, the goal here is that we'd like to nudge the
> ping-pong
> > circle between the author and the reviewer.
> >
> > So I'd like to prototype a feature based on pulsarbot, simulate ASF
> INFRA's
> > waiting-for-user, waiting-for-infra cycle to react to:
> >
> > /pulsarbot waiting-for-author
> > /pulsarbot waiting-for-reviewer
> >
> > ... which labels the issue. The original stale logic can be integrated
> into
> > waiting-for-reviewer, which is better than "you are stale/inactive".
> Then a
> > reviewer can label it as waiting-for-author so that we learn the state
> and
> > the stale bot will skip it.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
> >
> > Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 11:42写道：
> >
> > > Hi tison,
> > >
> > > Good catch! I also noticed some issues with a stable label and a no
> > > activity commit message. This is going to add a lot of useless
> > information
> > > to the issue.
> > >
> > > I don't recommend leaving a commit message.
> > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > We can use the bot to mark the issue or PR but don't leave a commit
> > > message, and then it's up to the committer/PMC to decide whether to
> close
> > > it or continue handling it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zixuan
> > >
> > > Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月31日周日 01:39写道：
> > >
> > > > Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions:
> > > > > >> >
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > >> > tison.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > tison <wa...@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 <co...@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 <wander4096@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
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Does stale bot make value for you?

Posted by Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com>.
I agreed with @tison, LGTM

Thanks,
Zixuan


tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 23:07写道：

> Sum up the ideas above:
>
> * Keep it as is @penghui
> * Extend the interval @dave
> * Change the message @eolivelli
> * Remove the message @zixuan
>
> I may try to remove the stale bot at the beginning, but when I consider it
> more constructively, the goal here is that we'd like to nudge the ping-pong
> circle between the author and the reviewer.
>
> So I'd like to prototype a feature based on pulsarbot, simulate ASF INFRA's
> waiting-for-user, waiting-for-infra cycle to react to:
>
> /pulsarbot waiting-for-author
> /pulsarbot waiting-for-reviewer
>
> ... which labels the issue. The original stale logic can be integrated into
> waiting-for-reviewer, which is better than "you are stale/inactive". Then a
> reviewer can label it as waiting-for-author so that we learn the state and
> the stale bot will skip it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 11:42写道：
>
> > Hi tison,
> >
> > Good catch! I also noticed some issues with a stable label and a no
> > activity commit message. This is going to add a lot of useless
> information
> > to the issue.
> >
> > I don't recommend leaving a commit message.
> >
> > > 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).
> >
> > We can use the bot to mark the issue or PR but don't leave a commit
> > message, and then it's up to the committer/PMC to decide whether to close
> > it or continue handling it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zixuan
> >
> > Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月31日周日 01:39写道：
> >
> > > Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions:
> > > > >> >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > tison.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > tison <wa...@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 <co...@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 <wa...@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
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Does stale bot make value for you?

Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
Sum up the ideas above:

* Keep it as is @penghui
* Extend the interval @dave
* Change the message @eolivelli
* Remove the message @zixuan

I may try to remove the stale bot at the beginning, but when I consider it
more constructively, the goal here is that we'd like to nudge the ping-pong
circle between the author and the reviewer.

So I'd like to prototype a feature based on pulsarbot, simulate ASF INFRA's
waiting-for-user, waiting-for-infra cycle to react to:

/pulsarbot waiting-for-author
/pulsarbot waiting-for-reviewer

... which labels the issue. The original stale logic can be integrated into
waiting-for-reviewer, which is better than "you are stale/inactive". Then a
reviewer can label it as waiting-for-author so that we learn the state and
the stale bot will skip it.

What do you think?

Best,
tison.


Zixuan Liu <no...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月1日周一 11:42写道：

> Hi tison,
>
> Good catch! I also noticed some issues with a stable label and a no
> activity commit message. This is going to add a lot of useless information
> to the issue.
>
> I don't recommend leaving a commit message.
>
> > 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).
>
> We can use the bot to mark the issue or PR but don't leave a commit
> message, and then it's up to the committer/PMC to decide whether to close
> it or continue handling it.
>
> Thanks,
> Zixuan
>
> Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年7月31日周日 01:39写道：
>
> > Il Sab 30 Lug 2022, 17:53 tison <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@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 <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here is a fresh bad case of stale impressions:
> > > >> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15981#issuecomment-1200152441
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > tison.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > tison <wa...@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 <co...@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 <wa...@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
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>