You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@polaris.apache.org by Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> on 2026/02/03 21:51:53 UTC
[DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Hi team,
A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
automatically?
Arguments for closing include:
- It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
worked on or are irrelevant.
- The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
Arguments against closing include:
- An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
unresolved problems.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Alex
[1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de>.
Another option could be to let the stale-job ping reminders on stale issues
regularly, but not close those.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 12:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Fair enough. We can start like this and adapt if needed.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le mer. 4 févr. 2026 à 11:45, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> > job running might not be such a big deal:
> >
> > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> >
> > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
> > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> >
> > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
> > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> > > little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
> > >
> > > Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
> > > more sense to me.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > >
> > > Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > >
> > > > While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author
> > can
> > > > always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > automatically
> > > > close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and
> should
> > be
> > > > reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> > manually
> > > > close issues when appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi team,
> > > >>
> > > >> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> > > >> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While
> this
> > > >> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> re-enablement
> > > >> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> > > >> automatically?
> > > >>
> > > >> Arguments for closing include:
> > > >>
> > > >> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> > > >> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > >>
> > > >> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is
> closed,
> > > >> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > >>
> > > >> Arguments against closing include:
> > > >>
> > > >> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> > > >> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> > > >> unresolved problems.
> > > >>
> > > >> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Alex
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Fair enough. We can start like this and adapt if needed.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
Le mer. 4 févr. 2026 à 11:45, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> job running might not be such a big deal:
>
> Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
>
> In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
> stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
>
> While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
> being, the effort required seems minimal.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> > little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
> >
> > Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
> > more sense to me.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> > fpapon@apache.org
> > francois.papon@openobject.fr
> >
> > Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > >
> > > While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author
> can
> > > always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> automatically
> > > close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should
> be
> > > reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> manually
> > > close issues when appropriate.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi team,
> > >>
> > >> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> > >> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> > >> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> > >> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> > >> automatically?
> > >>
> > >> Arguments for closing include:
> > >>
> > >> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> > >> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > >>
> > >> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> > >> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > >>
> > >> Arguments against closing include:
> > >>
> > >> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> > >> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> > >> unresolved problems.
> > >>
> > >> What are your thoughts on this?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Alex
> > >>
> > >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>.
Hi All,
Flagging issues as state (but not closing them automatically) is useful,
IMHO.
Those labels can be used in search criteria for backlog grooming. Also, the
stale notification can help to promote review.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:42 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we don't even need to flag issues as stale, but I'm fine to do
> that. Approved the PR. Thanks a lot for acting on it, Alex!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:10 AM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Alright, here is a PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3683
> >
> > It still marks issues stale but doesn't close them. It also fixes some
> > misconfigurations.
> >
> > If that's not what you folks want, let's continue this discussion in the
> > PR.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > My take on this one is that we have consensus to close PRs but not
> > issues.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to start like this and revisit later if needed.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > Le ven. 6 févr. 2026 à 11:58, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor
> of
> > > > NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue
> > automatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yufei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in
> > the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > François
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having
> > this
> > > > > > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > > > > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job
> will
> > be
> > > > > > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity
> to
> > > > > > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue
> > [1]
> > > > as
> > > > > > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for
> the
> > > > time
> > > > > > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > > > > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can
> > be a
> > > > > > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not
> > understand
> > > > why.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the
> user
> > > > make
> > > > > > >> more sense to me.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> regards,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> François
> > > > > > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > > > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the
> > > > author
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason
> and
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having
> > reviewers
> > > > > > manually
> > > > > > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>> JB
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <
> > adutra@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi team,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented
> > the
> > > > > > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris.
> > While
> > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> > > > re-enablement
> > > > > > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale
> > issues
> > > > > > >>>> automatically?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being
> > actively
> > > > > > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue
> is
> > > > closed,
> > > > > > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original
> reporter
> > has
> > > > > > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of
> > > > important,
> > > > > > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Michael Collado <co...@gmail.com>.
I like the flagging, but not closing approach. I also like Robert's
proposal to ping, but not close - it means the people with the power to do
something about the stale issues face the consequence of letting them
languish :)
Mike
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 9:42 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we don't even need to flag issues as stale, but I'm fine to do
> that. Approved the PR. Thanks a lot for acting on it, Alex!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:10 AM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Alright, here is a PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3683
> >
> > It still marks issues stale but doesn't close them. It also fixes some
> > misconfigurations.
> >
> > If that's not what you folks want, let's continue this discussion in the
> > PR.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > My take on this one is that we have consensus to close PRs but not
> > issues.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to start like this and revisit later if needed.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > Le ven. 6 févr. 2026 à 11:58, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor
> of
> > > > NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue
> > automatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yufei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in
> > the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > François
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having
> > this
> > > > > > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > > > > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job
> will
> > be
> > > > > > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity
> to
> > > > > > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue
> > [1]
> > > > as
> > > > > > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for
> the
> > > > time
> > > > > > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > > > > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can
> > be a
> > > > > > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not
> > understand
> > > > why.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the
> user
> > > > make
> > > > > > >> more sense to me.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> regards,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> François
> > > > > > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > > > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the
> > > > author
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason
> and
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having
> > reviewers
> > > > > > manually
> > > > > > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>> JB
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <
> > adutra@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi team,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented
> > the
> > > > > > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris.
> > While
> > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> > > > re-enablement
> > > > > > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale
> > issues
> > > > > > >>>> automatically?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being
> > actively
> > > > > > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue
> is
> > > > closed,
> > > > > > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original
> reporter
> > has
> > > > > > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of
> > > > important,
> > > > > > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
I think we don't even need to flag issues as stale, but I'm fine to do
that. Approved the PR. Thanks a lot for acting on it, Alex!
Yufei
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:10 AM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Alright, here is a PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3683
>
> It still marks issues stale but doesn't close them. It also fixes some
> misconfigurations.
>
> If that's not what you folks want, let's continue this discussion in the
> PR.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > My take on this one is that we have consensus to close PRs but not
> issues.
> >
> > I would suggest to start like this and revisit later if needed.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > Le ven. 6 févr. 2026 à 11:58, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor of
> > > NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue
> automatically.
> > > >
> > > > Yufei
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in
> the
> > > > > future.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > François
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having
> this
> > > > > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > > > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will
> be
> > > > > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > > > > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue
> [1]
> > > as
> > > > > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the
> > > time
> > > > > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]:
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > > > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can
> be a
> > > > > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not
> understand
> > > why.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user
> > > make
> > > > > >> more sense to me.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> regards,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> François
> > > > > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the
> > > author
> > > > > can
> > > > > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having
> reviewers
> > > > > manually
> > > > > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > >>> JB
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <
> adutra@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi team,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented
> the
> > > > > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris.
> While
> > > this
> > > > > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> > > re-enablement
> > > > > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale
> issues
> > > > > >>>> automatically?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being
> actively
> > > > > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is
> > > closed,
> > > > > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter
> has
> > > > > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of
> > > important,
> > > > > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
Alright, here is a PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3683
It still marks issues stale but doesn't close them. It also fixes some
misconfigurations.
If that's not what you folks want, let's continue this discussion in the PR.
Thanks,
Alex
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> My take on this one is that we have consensus to close PRs but not issues.
>
> I would suggest to start like this and revisit later if needed.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le ven. 6 févr. 2026 à 11:58, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor of
> > NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue automatically.
> > >
> > > Yufei
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in the
> > > > future.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > François
> > > >
> > > > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> > > > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> > > > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > > > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1]
> > as
> > > > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the
> > time
> > > > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> > > > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand
> > why.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user
> > make
> > > > >> more sense to me.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> regards,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> François
> > > > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > > > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the
> > author
> > > > can
> > > > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > > > automatically
> > > > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> > > > manually
> > > > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> JB
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <adutra@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi team,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> > > > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While
> > this
> > > > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> > re-enablement
> > > > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> > > > >>>> automatically?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> > > > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is
> > closed,
> > > > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> > > > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of
> > important,
> > > > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi
My take on this one is that we have consensus to close PRs but not issues.
I would suggest to start like this and revisit later if needed.
Regards
JB
Le ven. 6 févr. 2026 à 11:58, Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor of
> NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue automatically.
> >
> > Yufei
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alexandre,
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in the
> > > future.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > >
> > > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> > > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > > >
> > > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> > > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1]
> as
> > > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > > >
> > > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the
> time
> > > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> > > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand
> why.
> > > >>
> > > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user
> make
> > > >> more sense to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> François
> > > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > > >>
> > > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the
> author
> > > can
> > > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > > automatically
> > > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and
> should
> > > be
> > > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> > > manually
> > > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> JB
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <adutra@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi team,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> > > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While
> this
> > > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its
> re-enablement
> > > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> > > >>>> automatically?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> > > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is
> closed,
> > > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> > > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of
> important,
> > > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Alex
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > > >>>>
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
What are the next steps here? It seems we have more people in favor of
NOT closing than closing. Is my understanding correct?
Thanks,
Alex
On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:37 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue automatically.
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alexandre,
> >
> > Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in the
> > future.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> >
> > Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> > > job running might not be such a big deal:
> > >
> > > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> > > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> > >
> > > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
> > > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> > >
> > > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
> > > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> > >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
> > >>
> > >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
> > >> more sense to me.
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >>
> > >> François
> > >> fpapon@apache.org
> > >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > >>
> > >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > >>> Hi Alex,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > >>>
> > >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author
> > can
> > >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> > automatically
> > >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should
> > be
> > >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> > manually
> > >>> close issues when appropriate.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> JB
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi team,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> > >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> > >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> > >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> > >>>> automatically?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> > >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> > >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> > >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> > >>>> unresolved problems.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Alex
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> > >>>>
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue automatically.
Yufei
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in the
> future.
>
> regards,
>
> François
>
> Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> > job running might not be such a big deal:
> >
> > Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> > notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> > received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> > evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
> >
> > In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
> > stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
> >
> > While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
> > being, the effort required seems minimal.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> > <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> >> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
> >>
> >> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
> >> more sense to me.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> François
> >> fpapon@apache.org
> >> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> >>
> >> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> >>>
> >>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author
> can
> >>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should
> automatically
> >>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should
> be
> >>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers
> manually
> >>> close issues when appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi team,
> >>>>
> >>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> >>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> >>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> >>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> >>>> automatically?
> >>>>
> >>>> Arguments for closing include:
> >>>>
> >>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> >>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> >>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> >>>>
> >>>> Arguments against closing include:
> >>>>
> >>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> >>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> >>>> unresolved problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> >>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org>.
Hi Alexandre,
Sounds good to me, we can try this approach and see if it fit in the future.
regards,
François
Le 04/02/2026 à 11:44, Alexandre Dutra a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
> job running might not be such a big deal:
>
> Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
> notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
> received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
> evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
>
> In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
> stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
>
> While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
> being, the effort required seems minimal.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
> <fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
>> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
>>
>> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
>> more sense to me.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>> francois.papon@openobject.fr
>>
>> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> Thanks for starting this discussion!
>>>
>>> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author can
>>> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should automatically
>>> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should be
>>> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers manually
>>> close issues when appropriate.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi team,
>>>>
>>>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
>>>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
>>>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
>>>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
>>>> automatically?
>>>>
>>>> Arguments for closing include:
>>>>
>>>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
>>>> worked on or are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
>>>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
>>>>
>>>> Arguments against closing include:
>>>>
>>>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
>>>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
>>>> unresolved problems.
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
>>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
I'm open to either approach, but I wanted to explain why having this
job running might not be such a big deal:
Since many community contributors subscribe to all Polaris
notifications, any stale issue notification from the CI job will be
received by many people. This provides us with an opportunity to
evaluate whether an issue should be reopened or not.
In fact, we just saw this in action: the job flagged this issue [1] as
stale 8 hours ago, and Robert immediately unflagged it :-)
While frequently unflagging issues could become a burden, for the time
being, the effort required seems minimal.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Alex
[1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3086#issuecomment-3844852237
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Francois Papon
<fr...@openobject.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
> little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
>
> Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
> more sense to me.
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
> francois.papon@openobject.fr
>
> Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Thanks for starting this discussion!
> >
> > While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author can
> > always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should automatically
> > close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should be
> > reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers manually
> > close issues when appropriate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi team,
> >>
> >> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> >> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> >> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> >> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> >> automatically?
> >>
> >> Arguments for closing include:
> >>
> >> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> >> worked on or are irrelevant.
> >>
> >> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> >> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
> >>
> >> Arguments against closing include:
> >>
> >> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> >> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> >> unresolved problems.
> >>
> >> What are your thoughts on this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi,
I am agree with JB, closing PR automatically after 14 days can be a
little agressive and whitout review, the users will not understand why.
Closing a PR without answer activity after a delay from the user make
more sense to me.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
francois.papon@openobject.fr
Le 04/02/2026 à 09:33, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion!
>
> While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author can
> always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should automatically
> close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should be
> reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers manually
> close issues when appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> JB
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi team,
>>
>> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
>> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
>> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
>> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
>> automatically?
>>
>> Arguments for closing include:
>>
>> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
>> worked on or are irrelevant.
>>
>> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
>> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
>>
>> Arguments against closing include:
>>
>> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
>> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
>> unresolved problems.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for starting this discussion!
While I am comfortable with automatically closing PRs (as the author can
always comment to keep them open), I don't believe we should automatically
close issues. Issues are typically opened for a good reason and should be
reviewed, reproduced, and investigated. I prefer having reviewers manually
close issues when appropriate.
Regards,
JB
On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 10:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> automatically?
>
> Arguments for closing include:
>
> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> worked on or are irrelevant.
>
> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
>
> Arguments against closing include:
>
> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> unresolved problems.
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing stale issues
Posted by Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for starting this discussion.
From my POV if the project closes stale issues automatically, it implies
that we review issues within the grace period and begin working on relevant
issues. However, I do not think this is happening in practice.
If the issue was filed as a matter of confusion, it effectively becomes a
kind of user question, which still deserves an answer from the community
(even if the answer is "we do not know").
If the issue was filed correctly but the reporter is no longer engaged with
the project, the issue still deserves fixing.
If it is necessary to ask for feedback from the reporter and the
reporter does not respond, then it would be reasonable to close the issue
after a grace period.
All in all, I tend to favour the option of not automatically closing
issues, but reviewing old issues periodically (perhaps in the Community
Sync call) and closing with a personal message.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 4:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> A recent PR [1] fixed a misconfiguration that had prevented the
> automatic closing of stale issues from working in Polaris. While this
> feature seems to have been intended from the start, its re-enablement
> raises a fundamental question: should we be closing stale issues
> automatically?
>
> Arguments for closing include:
>
> - It helps to clear out issues that are no longer being actively
> worked on or are irrelevant.
>
> - The system provides a 14-day grace period before an issue is closed,
> giving anyone the chance to comment and keep the issue open.
>
> Arguments against closing include:
>
> - An issue might still be valid even if the original reporter has
> become inactive. Closing it could lead to losing track of important,
> unresolved problems.
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3636
>