Thanks Alex for raising this. +1 to not closing the issue automatically. Yufei
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:44 AM Francois Papon <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> [email protected] > >> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > >>>> >
