Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

A vote makes sense. The proposed config is at https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5532/files and will mark pull requests as stale after 90 days and close them 7 days later. Issues are not affected. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:14 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Ismael had mentioned to vote on this, so

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Ismael had mentioned to vote on this, so let's do that now to make sure no one missed this discussion. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:33 PM Alan Myrvold wrote: > Thanks. I can look into adding the stale.yaml file for old pull requests/ > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >>

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Thanks. I can look into adding the stale.yaml file for old pull requests/ On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Update: you brought the information needed, and it is now enabled. Thanks > for the follow-through! > > Since you dug into probot's details, I took the liberty of as

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Update: you brought the information needed, and it is now enabled. Thanks for the follow-through! Since you dug into probot's details, I took the liberty of assigning BEAM-4423 to you, in case throwing together the needed configs is fresh in your mind and you are in the mood to continue. (if not,

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

INFRA-16589 got closed asking to clarify that the probot-stale app would not have permissions to merge automatically. >From my reading of the permissions documentation, it would not. I added a comment to INFRA-16589 On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:05 AM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > I opened up INFRA-16589 >

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I opened up INFRA-16589 for Apache infra to install Stale but they denied a similar request INFRA-16394 because of permissions issues. I tried clarifying the permissions requested. On Tue, May 2

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

+1. I've opened BEAM-4423 to capture the discussion here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4423 On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:34 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > +1 for automatically closing. Currently, contribution guide mentions that > pull requests without responses to actionable comments

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

+1 for automatically closing. Currently, contribution guide mentions that pull requests without responses to actionable comments become stale (and closed) after two months but last I checked there were many pull requests that met this criteria but had not been closed after many months. So seems lik

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

That makes sense, to just focus on Beam's decision. It seems the tool is already built. I thought we just had to deploy it, but maybe not even that, if we can just activate it: https://github.com/apps/stale Kenn On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:31 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Given that reaching consensus

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Given that reaching consensus in both communities seems like a harder task than just deciding our policy. in the Beam side Why don't we just go ahead and vote around this + build the tool, and if the Flink guys are interested they can take it, no? in the future we can share that code. On Wed, May

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

+dev@beam / hi dev@flink / I saw this and forwarded on to dev@beam for consideration. There was general agreement that it was interesting so I thought I'd loop them together. I tried to wait until both threads had enough support that combining them wouldn't confuse things. Beam would also be inter

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

t;> > each project should discuss on our own. >> >>> > >> >>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" >> infrastructure >> >>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / >&g

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

share "stale PR closer bot" > infrastructure > >>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / > combine > >>> > with merge-bot / etc). > >>> > > >>> > The downside to automation is being less empathe

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

erge-bot / etc). >>> > >>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for >>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. >>> > >>> > Kenn >>> > >>> > -- Forwarded message

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

tc). >> > >> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for >> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > -- Forwarded message - >> > From: Ufuk Cel

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

y be a hook where we put other things / combine > > with merge-bot / etc). > > > > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for > > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. > > > > Kenn > > > > -- Forwarded mess

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Celebi mailto:u...@apache.org>> Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests To: mailto:d...@flink.apache.org>> Hey Piotr, thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw it work successfully at other projects. S

Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

with merge-bot / etc). The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. Kenn -- Forwarded message - From: Ufuk Celebi Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requ