I've proposed to add more exempt labels and set the closing timeout to 28
days here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8084.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 01:35, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote:
> You raise a good point but I don't think leaving issues open with no
> response forever is a good solution either. That's probably what would have
> happened to your issues if we didn't have a stalebot. The ideal thing is to
> strive to respond to every reported issue, which hopefully we can pull
> together as a community to do.
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 3:22 PM Prashant Deva <prashant.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > i agree with you, but do consider the following case:
> >
> > I am new to druid. I report the above 2 bugs. They don’t get a response.
> > Then a bot closes them automatically.
> > As a new user, I may then not be motivated to report further bugs.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:13 PM Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that would be a perfect reason to comment on those issues and
> > > mention that they are still relevant. The stalebot message even invites
> > you
> > > to do so. IMO, one of the services provided by the stalebot is to
> remind
> > > people to take a look at older issues and check if they are still
> > relevant,
> > > otherwise they would be likely to sit open forever with nobody
> reviewing
> > > them.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:06 PM Prashant Deva <prashant.d...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > stalebot just closed my issues 7473 and 7521.
> > > >
> > > > Both bugs are still present.
> > > >
> > > > they were closed because the bug reports themselves didn’t receive a
> > > reply.
> > > >
> > > > Not receiving a reply did not make the bugs go away. Yet due to
> > stalebot,
> > > > the bugs are now closed.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:28 AM Roman Leventov <
> leventov...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that have no
> > > > > > constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of feature
> > > ideas
> > > > > > around that nobody is actively pushing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have experience as a user (feature asker) of projects which adopt
> > > this
> > > > > policy and it always feels bad to me when my issue is closed "due
> to
> > > lack
> > > > > of activity". What activity do they expect? I'm not a developer of
> > this
> > > > > project so, realistically, I cannot contribute to it. However, the
> > > > problem
> > > > > is real and it causes real pain when I use the product (project,
> > > library,
> > > > > etc). So it always feels to me that the developers just want to
> feel
> > > > > comfortable (as described in the stalebot's documentation cited
> above
> > > in
> > > > > this thread) and see a small number of open issues at the expense
> of
> > > > > alienating users to some little extent. So, IMO, it's better to fix
> > our
> > > > > perception instead about a large and ever-growing number of issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Performance" and "Refactoring" makes more sense to consider
> > > evergreen
> > > > >
> > > > > Then "Improvement" should be there, too ("Performance" and
> > > "Refactoring"
> > > > > are just special cases of "Improvement"), as well as regular "Area
> -
> > "
> > > > > tags, because "Improvement" is often omitted: generic "improvement"
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > default intention of an issue unless tagged to something different
> > > (such
> > > > as
> > > > > "bug").
> > > > >
> > > > > > Without that, some perfectly good ideas might be totally
> forgotten,
> > > > open
> > > > > forever but never looked at. I'm ok either way on these two
> labels, I
> > > > > suppose.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps issue priorities is a better tool for tackling this rather
> > than
> > > > > regular notification of just the author of the issue. Tags give
> > > > visibility
> > > > > for other developers and provide a way to browse the pool of
> > impactful
> > > > > ideas. Priorities used to be used in the past but then people
> stopped
> > > > using
> > > > > them. The only problem with priorities that I see is that they are
> > > > > subjective. "Impact/effort ratio" is something more objective.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 21:07, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I claim that features have a different lifecycle to bugs. There
> may
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a strong case for doing a particular feature today, but in a
> year,
> > > > there
> > > > > > may be a greater demand. If a bugs are not fixed, their
> importance
> > > > > usually
> > > > > > declines over time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are people able to vote for features in GitHub issues? Are they
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > > vote to them if they are closed? I think it’s useful for people
> to
> > > > > continue
> > > > > > to chime in on features, and eventually build consensus about
> what
> > > > should
> > > > > > be built.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps a label “not on roadmap” on a feature is all that is
> > > necessary
> > > > to
> > > > > > manage people’s expectations. I agree that closing bugs makes
> sense
> > > > > because
> > > > > > (for some reason!) users assume that developers intend to fix
> every
> > > > > single
> > > > > > bug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me it makes sense to close even "Feature" ideas that have no
> > > > > > > constituency, since it is just clutter to have a bunch of
> feature
> > > > ideas
> > > > > > > around that nobody is actively pushing. However this starts to
> > > remind
> > > > > me
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the Wikipedia "deletionism vs. inclusionism" debate:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > simmers even to this day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Performance" and "Refactoring" makes more sense to consider
> > > > evergreen,
> > > > > > > although there may still be some benefit in stalebotting them
> > > anyway,
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > the bot bumps things periodically to encourage reconsideration.
> > > > Without
> > > > > > > that, some perfectly good ideas might be totally forgotten,
> open
> > > > > forever
> > > > > > > but never looked at. I'm ok either way on these two labels, I
> > > > suppose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:36 AM Roman Leventov <
> > > > leventov...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I wrote previous messages in this thread before I've
> discovered
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> stalebot send me more than 100 messages. (That shouldn't be
> > > > surprising
> > > > > > >> since I'm the author of 174 open issues in Druid:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/search?p=1&q=is%3Aopen+author%3Aleventov+is%3Aissue&type=Issues
> > > > > > >> ).
> > > > > > >> As an experiment, I'll try to go over all notifications and
> post
> > > > here
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> many of them can actually be closed now.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On the other hand, I've realized that a big and a legitimate
> > case
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> stalebot closing issues are the issues of "Problem report"
> kind
> > (
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/new?assignees=&template=problem_report.md&title=
> > > > > > >> ).
> > > > > > >> The reasoning is that
> > > > > > >> - As time passes, the issue may be fixed in the newer Druid
> > > > versions.
> > > > > > >> - The report may be irreproducible or hardly reproducible,
> > > > especially
> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> the Druid version used is unspecified or there is otherwise
> too
> > > > little
> > > > > > >> information in the issue.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "Flaky test" issues are somewhat similar, too.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Jon once suggested to add a "Problem report" tag:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/61068635cc338dd0da6d43bfca16adf9ccdd3d61e267b598124ca3ad@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >> .
> > > > > > >> We could revive this idea in the form of "Uncategorized
> problem
> > > > > > report". It
> > > > > > >> would be a committer's duty to reassign either to "bug",
> > > "invalid",
> > > > or
> > > > > > >> "won't fix" upon verification.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Then, I suggest that the stalebot only watches "Uncategorized
> > > > problem
> > > > > > >> report", "Flaky test", and issues without any tags (that would
> > > sweep
> > > > > all
> > > > > > >> old issues which are essentially uncategorized problem
> reports,
> > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> new issues when the authors use the "Other" button instead of
> > > > "Problem
> > > > > > >> report" button).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think that the majority of "Feature/Change request",
> > "Feature",
> > > > > > >> "Refactoring", "Performance", etc. issues would be
> "evergreen",
> > so
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> more practically to close them only by occasion when someone
> > > visits
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >> old issues.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 21:57, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> The core idea is that it's good for someone or something to
> go
> > > > > through
> > > > > > >> old
> > > > > > >>> issues periodically and clean up anything that's no longer
> > > > relevant,
> > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > >>> having a bunch of irrelevant issues lying around is poor
> > project
> > > > > > hygiene.
> > > > > > >>> No human is really volunteering for this, hence the bot. The
> > fact
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >>> bumps things before closing them is useful too, since it sort
> > of
> > > > > forces
> > > > > > >>> periodic re-consideration of relevancy.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>> The effect should be giving us an
> > > > > > >>>>> open issues list that more accurately respects the issues
> > that
> > > > > people
> > > > > > >>> in
> > > > > > >>>>> the community feel are important.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>> The list would still be too long to be comprehensible or
> > > > digestible
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>>> anybody, nor that anyone is expected to go through the full
> > list
> > > > at
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >>>> time.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Maybe so, but I would really hope that with a shorter list,
> it
> > > > could
> > > > > > >>> potentially be more digestible. At least wouldn't have a
> large
> > > > amount
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >>> irrelevant issues. If you look through our older issues, so
> > many
> > > of
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > >>> are irrelevant or questionably relevant to today's Druid.
> This
> > is
> > > > > fine
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > >>> nobody ever looks at them, which is probably the case for
> > regular
> > > > > > >>> contributors, who I assume mostly interact with issues
> through
> > > > > > >>> notifications. But it can be misleading to those that don't
> pay
> > > > > > attention
> > > > > > >>> to the project every day.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Personally, I open many issues
> > > > > > >>>> which I don't really plan to work on in any foreseeable
> > future,
> > > > just
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> record my ideas and thoughts so that they can be discovered
> by
> > > > other
> > > > > > >>>> developers (and myself) later, and referenced to from future
> > > > > > >> discussions,
> > > > > > >>>> issues, and PRs. I see a real practical value in it, as I
> > > > routinely
> > > > > > >> link
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>> my own old issues (and re-read them, refreshing my old
> > thoughts
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> topic) in Druid development. I don't want to take on a
> burden
> > of
> > > > > > >>> regularly
> > > > > > >>>> repel the stalebot from all of these issues.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> This is a tough one. I did think about it and there are ups
> and
> > > > > downs.
> > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > >>> upside of stalebot in this case is that these 'idea and
> > thoughts'
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > >>> can become irrelevant over time (the underlying area of code
> > has
> > > > been
> > > > > > >>> refactored and nobody updated the issue, etc) and so it's
> good
> > to
> > > > > close
> > > > > > >>> issues that may no longer be relevant. The downside is that
> the
> > > > 'idea
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> thoughts' issues tend to naturally be dormant for a long
> time,
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> stalebot can be annoying. There is a label "Evergreen" that
> can
> > > be
> > > > > used
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >>> ward off the stalebot (it will ignore anything with that
> label)
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>> used to solve the latter problem. It's probably not good to
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > ton
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >>> issues labeled this way, since they can become irrelevant
> over
> > > > time,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >>> is an option. The stalebot can be configured (and is
> > configured)
> > > to
> > > > > > >> ignore
> > > > > > >>> issues that are part of projects, that have assignees, or
> that
> > > have
> > > > > > >>> milestones, so those are options too if they make sense.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:07 AM Roman Leventov <
> > > > > leventov...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> The effect should be giving us an
> > > > > > >>>>> open issues list that more accurately respects the issues
> > that
> > > > > people
> > > > > > >>> in
> > > > > > >>>>> the community feel are important.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> The list would still be too long to be comprehensible or
> > > > digestible
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>>> anybody, nor that anyone is expected to go through the full
> > list
> > > > at
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >>>> time.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I see the value of nudging PR authors to push their work
> > through
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >>>> than abandon PRs in pursuit of something new, hoping to
> return
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> older
> > > > > > >>>> PRs later (which will likely never happen) - that is, to
> avoid
> > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> psychological fallacy.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> But I don't see the same value for issues. Personally, I
> open
> > > many
> > > > > > >> issues
> > > > > > >>>> which I don't really plan to work on in any foreseeable
> > future,
> > > > just
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> record my ideas and thoughts so that they can be discovered
> by
> > > > other
> > > > > > >>>> developers (and myself) later, and referenced to from future
> > > > > > >> discussions,
> > > > > > >>>> issues, and PRs. I see a real practical value in it, as I
> > > > routinely
> > > > > > >> link
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>> my own old issues (and re-read them, refreshing my old
> > thoughts
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> topic) in Druid development. I don't want to take on a
> burden
> > of
> > > > > > >>> regularly
> > > > > > >>>> repel the stalebot from all of these issues.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> As more and more work piles up, it becomes paralyzing.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> What I suggest is to embrace the fact that open issues list
> > will
> > > > > grow
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >>>> long as the project exists and don't be paralyzed. Why
> would a
> > > > > number
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > >>>> circle in Github interface paralyze anybody from doing work,
> > > > anyway?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Just making decisions about what work should and shouldn't
> > get
> > > > > > >>>>> done can exhaust all available resources.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> This statement doesn't make sense to me as well as the
> > previous
> > > > > one. I
> > > > > > >>>> actually agree that priorities and focus is an important
> issue
> > > > for a
> > > > > > >>>> project like Druid where there are a lot of directions in
> > which
> > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>> improved and it's hard to choose (predict) the direction
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > >> highest
> > > > > > >>>> ROI. But I don't see how going down from 1000 to 100 open
> > issues
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >>> help
> > > > > > >>>> with this challenge at all.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> As a compromise approach, I suggest to auto-tag issues as
> > > > "Shelved",
> > > > > > >>>> although, personally, I don't see the point in that either,
> > but
> > > if
> > > > > > >> other
> > > > > > >>>> people want to see if there is any recent activity on the
> > issue,
> > > > it
> > > > > > >> might
> > > > > > >>>> be helpful.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Prashant
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Prashant
> >
>
