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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >
