adp2201 commented on issue #21038:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/21038#issuecomment-4092911845

   After digging into it a bit more, I don’t think it is straightforward to 
distinguish those two states accurately with GitHub search alone.
   
   The closest useful filter for the broad “approved PRs” bucket seems to be:
   
   - `is:pr is:open repo:apache/datafusion review:approved draft:false`
   
   I think that works reasonably well for “approved PRs”, but not for splitting:
   
   - `Approved, waiting 24h`
   - `Ready to merge`
   
   because the missing piece is the **approval timestamp**. GitHub search gives 
us `review:approved` and `updated:`, but not “approved at”, which is what we 
would actually need.
   
   So I think the realistic options are:
   
   1. **Use a single approved bucket**
      - Assumption: reviewers / committers can manually interpret whether a PR 
is still inside the 24h window
      - Lowest overhead, but does not make the distinction explicit
   
   2. **Use a manual label/state for the 24h distinction**
      - Assumption: someone updates it consistently
      - More explicit, but adds maintenance overhead
   
   3. **Use small automation**
      - For example, a scheduled GitHub Action that checks approval timestamps 
and reports or labels PRs accordingly
      - Assumption: we care enough about this distinction to automate it 
properly
   
   My current preference would be:
   - use the single approved bucket first
   - only introduce labels or automation if the 24h distinction turns out to be 
operationally important
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to