Auto closing stale PRs label

[Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>]

I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
'autoclosed'?

Who can take care of this?
Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?

I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
(committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
not stale because of unfinished reviews.

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Alan Myrvold <am...@google.com>]

Glad to see it is working. The requests currently marked stale can be found
with https://github.com/apache/beam/labels/stale

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:34 PM Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>
wrote:

> Neat! Thanks for showing me where the options are.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> That's actually already how it works. We can configure how long it waits
>> after the message. Currently it is set for 60 day to stale and then 7 days
>> to close. You can see the options we've set up here; there may be more:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/stale.yml
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The new label makes sense to me, but Ismael: I want to make sure your
>>> concern is fully addressed. I see your point about making sure we are not
>>> shutting the door on a small fix that perhaps went unatended for benign
>>> reasons. Perhaps a step before closure is feasble? something like getting a
>>> nice message in the PR, "Ahoy! This PR hasn't moved in [X time]. If you're
>>> still working on it, can you comment? Otherwise, our highly sophisticated
>>> AI will declutter and close it in [Y days]".
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Totally agree.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I
>>>> got rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack
>>>> them I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since
>>>> that makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't
>>>> have a plan for them.
>>>>
>>>> Kenn
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Kenn, much better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
>>>>> contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
>>>>> rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
>>>>> contributor inactivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I
>>>>>> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I
>>>>>> have been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>>>>>>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>>>>>>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>>>>>>> 'autoclosed'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who can take care of this?
>>>>>>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>>>>>>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>>>>>>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>]

Neat! Thanks for showing me where the options are.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:24 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:

> That's actually already how it works. We can configure how long it waits
> after the message. Currently it is set for 60 day to stale and then 7 days
> to close. You can see the options we've set up here; there may be more:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/stale.yml
>
> Kenn
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The new label makes sense to me, but Ismael: I want to make sure your
>> concern is fully addressed. I see your point about making sure we are not
>> shutting the door on a small fix that perhaps went unatended for benign
>> reasons. Perhaps a step before closure is feasble? something like getting a
>> nice message in the PR, "Ahoy! This PR hasn't moved in [X time]. If you're
>> still working on it, can you comment? Otherwise, our highly sophisticated
>> AI will declutter and close it in [Y days]".
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Totally agree.
>>>
>>> By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I got
>>> rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack them
>>> I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since that
>>> makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't have a
>>> plan for them.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Kenn, much better.
>>>>
>>>> Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
>>>> contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
>>>> rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
>>>> contributor inactivity.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I
>>>>> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>>>>>
>>>>> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I
>>>>> have been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>>>>>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
>>>>>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>>>>>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>>>>>> 'autoclosed'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who can take care of this?
>>>>>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>>>>>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>>>>>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
>>>>>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>]

That's actually already how it works. We can configure how long it waits
after the message. Currently it is set for 60 day to stale and then 7 days
to close. You can see the options we've set up here; there may be more:
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/stale.yml

Kenn

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>
wrote:

> The new label makes sense to me, but Ismael: I want to make sure your
> concern is fully addressed. I see your point about making sure we are not
> shutting the door on a small fix that perhaps went unatended for benign
> reasons. Perhaps a step before closure is feasble? something like getting a
> nice message in the PR, "Ahoy! This PR hasn't moved in [X time]. If you're
> still working on it, can you comment? Otherwise, our highly sophisticated
> AI will declutter and close it in [Y days]".
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Totally agree.
>>
>> By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I got
>> rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack them
>> I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since that
>> makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't have a
>> plan for them.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Kenn, much better.
>>>
>>> Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
>>> contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
>>> rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
>>> contributor inactivity.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I
>>>> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>>>>
>>>> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I
>>>> have been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Kenn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>>>>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
>>>>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>>>>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>>>>> 'autoclosed'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who can take care of this?
>>>>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>>>>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>>>>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
>>>>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Rafael Fernandez <rf...@google.com>]

The new label makes sense to me, but Ismael: I want to make sure your
concern is fully addressed. I see your point about making sure we are not
shutting the door on a small fix that perhaps went unatended for benign
reasons. Perhaps a step before closure is feasble? something like getting a
nice message in the PR, "Ahoy! This PR hasn't moved in [X time]. If you're
still working on it, can you comment? Otherwise, our highly sophisticated
AI will declutter and close it in [Y days]".

Thoughts?


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:

> Totally agree.
>
> By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I got
> rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack them
> I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since that
> makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't have a
> plan for them.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Kenn, much better.
>>
>> Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
>> contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
>> rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
>> contributor inactivity.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I
>>> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>>>
>>> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I have
>>> been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>>>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
>>>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>>>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>>>> 'autoclosed'?
>>>>
>>>> Who can take care of this?
>>>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>>>
>>>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>>>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>>>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
>>>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>>>
>>>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>]

Totally agree.

By the way, these seem to be default labels for issue tracking. So I got
rid of the ones that don't seem to make sense. Any committer can hack them
I think. I just left "stale" for this purpose and "help wanted" since that
makes sense on a PR. But probably we don't need any since we don't have a
plan for them.

Kenn

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Kenn, much better.
>
> Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
> contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
> rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
> contributor inactivity.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I
>> agree with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>>
>> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I have
>> been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
>>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>>> 'autoclosed'?
>>>
>>> Who can take care of this?
>>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>>
>>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
>>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>>
>>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Kenn, much better.

Yes closing stale PRs is worth, but our ultimate goal should be to get
contributions in so we should keep in mind and try when it is worth to
rescue fixes that can be lost  because of minor review issues or
contributor inactivity.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:23 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:

> It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I agree
> with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750
>
> So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I have
> been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.
>
> Kenn
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
>> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
>> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
>> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
>> 'autoclosed'?
>>
>> Who can take care of this?
>> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>>
>> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
>> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
>> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
>> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>>
>

Re: Auto closing stale PRs label

[Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>]

It is configured by just a file so alteration is very transparent. I agree
with your point about the label. I made a new one for it. Here:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5750

So far I have been satisfied that it close many _very_ stale PRs. I have
been watching it and didn't see any that seemed wrong.

Kenn


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I saw some PRs auto closed recently and I was wondering if we could
> adjust the  label that is added to the autoclosed PRs, currently it is
> 'wontfix' but this label sends a fake (and negative) message. Can we
> parametrize the bot to put something closer to the intention like
> 'autoclosed'?
>
> Who can take care of this?
> Any other opinion/suggestion after these first days of the stale bot?
>
> I have the impression that the time between the staleness warning and
> the close is relatively short, of course PRs can be reopened but we
> (committers) should pay attention that a PR that is marked as stale is
> not stale because of unfinished reviews.
>