Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
Thanks for doing this Nicholas. 2020년 1월 28일 (화) 오전 8:15, Nicholas Chammas 님이 작성: > A brief update here: At the start of December when I started this thread > we had almost 500 open PRs. Now that the Stale workflow has had time to > catch up, we're down to ~280 open PRs. > > More impressive than the number of stale PRs that got closed > <https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3AStale+is%3Aclosed> > is how many PRs are active with relatively recent activity. It's a > testament to how active this project is. > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Nicholas Chammas < > nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs: >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26877 >> >> 2019년 12월 8일 (일) 오전 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: >> >>> It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long >>> as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. >>> I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable. >>> >>> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: >>> >>>> lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? >>>> >>>> When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: >>>> >>>> 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for >>>> a review, I excluded it from stale PR list. >>>> 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. >>>> 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. >>>> What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and >>>> which of them do you plan to add? >>>> >>>> I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time >>>> to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable >>>> so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to >>>> close some good and worthy PRs. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen 님이 작성: >>>> >>>>> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I >>>>> assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think >>>>> there's a policy against it or anything. >>>>> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >>>>> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >>>>> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >>>>> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>>>>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask >>>>>> because >>>>>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>>>>> like this. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are >>>>>> no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests >>>>>>> in Github? >>>>>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe >>>>>>> 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> be reopened. >>>>>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done >>>>>>> that separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It’s that topic again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a >>>>>>>> year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us >>>>>>>> the ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
A brief update here: At the start of December when I started this thread we had almost 500 open PRs. Now that the Stale workflow has had time to catch up, we're down to ~280 open PRs. More impressive than the number of stale PRs that got closed <https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3AStale+is%3Aclosed> is how many PRs are active with relatively recent activity. It's a testament to how active this project is. On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Nicholas Chammas < nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs: > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26877 > > 2019년 12월 8일 (일) 오전 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: > >> It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as >> Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. >> I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable. >> >> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: >> >>> lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? >>> >>> When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: >>> >>> 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a >>> review, I excluded it from stale PR list. >>> 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. >>> 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. >>> >>> Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. >>> What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and >>> which of them do you plan to add? >>> >>> I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time >>> to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable >>> so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to >>> close some good and worthy PRs. >>> >>> >>> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen 님이 작성: >>> >>>> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I >>>> assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think >>>> there's a policy against it or anything. >>>> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >>>> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >>>> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >>>> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>>>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >>>>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>>>> like this. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are >>>>> no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests >>>>>> in Github? >>>>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe >>>>>> 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it >>>>>> can't >>>>>> be reopened. >>>>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>>>>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s that topic again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a >>>>>>> year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us >>>>>>> the ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26877 2019년 12월 8일 (일) 오전 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: > It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as > Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. > I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable. > > 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: > >> lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? >> >> When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: >> >> 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a >> review, I excluded it from stale PR list. >> 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. >> 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. >> >> Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. >> What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which >> of them do you plan to add? >> >> I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time >> to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable >> so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to >> close some good and worthy PRs. >> >> >> 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen 님이 작성: >> >>> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I >>> assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think >>> there's a policy against it or anything. >>> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >>> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >>> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >>> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >>>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>>> like this. >>>> >>>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no >>>> concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in >>>>> Github? >>>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 >>>>> months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be >>>>> reopened. >>>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>>>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It’s that topic again. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a >>>>>> year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>>> >>>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>>> >>>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >>>>>> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable. 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성: > lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? > > When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: > > 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a > review, I excluded it from stale PR list. > 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. > 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. > > Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. > What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which > of them do you plan to add? > > I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to > consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable > so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close > some good and worthy PRs. > > > 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen 님이 작성: > >> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume >> this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a >> policy against it or anything. >> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>> like this. >>> >>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no >>> concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: >>> >>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in >>>> Github? >>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 >>>> months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be >>>> reopened. >>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It’s that topic again. >>>>> >>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year >>>>> old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>> >>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>> >>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >>>>> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list. 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add? I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs. 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen 님이 작성: > We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume > this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a > policy against it or anything. > Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? > I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some > friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the > proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < > nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >> like this. >> >> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no >> concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: >> >>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in >>> Github? >>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 >>> months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be >>> reopened. >>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It’s that topic again. >>>> >>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year >>>> old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>> >>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>> >>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >>>> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything. Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas wrote: > That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows > Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because > I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling > like this. > > In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no > concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: > >> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in >> Github? >> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 >> months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be >> reopened. >> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >> separately with bulk-close in the past. >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It’s that topic again. >>> >>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year >>> old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>> >>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>> >>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>> >>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >>> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>> >>> Nick >>> >>
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this. In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen wrote: > I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in > Github? > I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 > months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be > reopened. > Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that > separately with bulk-close in the past. > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < > nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It’s that topic again. >> >> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year >> old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >> >> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >> >> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >> >> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >> >> Nick >> >
Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github? I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened. Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past. On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas wrote: > It’s that topic again. > > We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year > old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc > > GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. > > https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues > > What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the > ability to even deploy a tool like this? > > Nick >
Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action
It’s that topic again. We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this? Nick