thanks for reviving @João Jandre Paraquetti , I agree in principle but my original reservation still stands. A year is too long but for some technical debt we might accept it. Would there be a way to label or otherwise mark tickets for not closing marking?
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 4:04 PM João Jandre Paraquetti <j...@scclouds.com.br> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to revive this discussion again, as I believe that > Vishesh's initiative is great for the projects maintenance. > Although the original proposal of marking as stale in 90 days and > closing after another 30 days is somewhat aggressive, I think that > awaiting 1+years to close a stale issue/PR is too much. I also think > that we should approach PRs and issues separately, as many times issues > are created for a feature request or bug that might take long to fix, > and PRs are generally supposed to be always updated by the author. Thus, > here's what I propose: > > For issues: > > - After 180 days, label as stale. > > - After 90 days as stale, close it. > > For issues which are long term goals or which naturally take a long time > to work on, we should label them with a 'long-term' label, and these > should not be labeled as stale by the bot. > > For PRs: > > - After 90 days, label as stale. > > - After 60 days, close it. > > Best regards, > > João Jandre. > > On 5/2/24 05:35, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > I like the general idea but at the same time want to weight in that we also > > do the right thing in handle issues and PRs. Sometimes there are genuine > > issues and PRs, however, we make no progress on them for one reason or > > another. > > > > As of last week, I've triaged all the outstanding Github issues that took > > some effort, and have tagged issues with the 1yr+ and 2yr+ tags and stale > > tags on all issues that are several years old now. I hope to not have > > incited negative reactions where I had to close about 50 odd issues which > > were really old, or already fixed, or moved a few of them to discussions. I > > see the value in having an automation to something around time based > > manner, esp for old issues and PRs that nobody cares about. Other > > opensource projects such as Kubernetes has similar automation. > > > > Many issues are (a) user queries or questions about their deployment or > > environment, and not necessarily issues or problems in CloudStack which can > > be moved to Github discussions (which are connected to our users@ ML) and > > (b) many issues are user feature requests or suggestions which nobody has > > cared to address. For (a) I've proposed a PR to drive users by default to > > Github Discussions first via the CloudStack UI and we can triage and move > > such user discussions which are not really CloudStack issues from Github > > issues to discussions. > > > > I think 2yrs+ is a reasonable time to close old/stale/inactive issues and > > PRs. And of course, anybody should be free to re-open or request to re-open > > and retain interesting issues and PRs on case by case basis. > > > > It's also worth encouraging and reminding everyone that CloudStack is an > > opensource project where all stakeholders including the users can pitch in, > > help with engaging in the discussions, sharing steps to reproduce a > > problem, or effort/steps to help test a change/pull-request, to improve the > > website and documentation, as well as to review/test pull requests. This > > means, as much as the development activity we get, we can also benefit from > > users in helping to address their own problems (if not including code but > > also) including documentation, website etc. "What's in it for you?" - you > > care, because you benefit from the project and you want to keep benefiting > > from the project. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Daan Hoogland<daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 18:05 > > To: dev<d...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users<users@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: [REVIVE][DISCUSS] Closing issues & PR after a certain time > > > > People, > > I want to revive this discussion and bring Vishesh' PR under your > > attention again. > > The discussion there is mostly about the length of the period before > > closing. > > So here I am going to state 1year - first warning, 1.5years second > > warning, 2 years closing. What do you all think? > > > > There are also issues that we might consider interesting but not > > functionally complete or clear, we can convert those to github > > discussions, and I would like to encourage all of you to do that as > > sometimes issues will lead to issues and not to PRs and those are > > basically discussions to be had. > > > > please respond with your comments or put them in > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/8667 > > > > regards, > > > > On 2024/02/16 09:17:02 Vishesh Jindal wrote: > >> I have created a PR with the changes > >> here:https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/8667 > >> > >> I propose that we enable it. As Daan suggested, we can always remove the > >> action if it doesn't work out. And if a PR/issue gets closed, we can > >> always reopen it. > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Daan Hoogland<da...@gmail.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:17 PM > >> To:d...@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Closing issues & PR after a certain time > >> > >> i'm a bit -0 on this. I agree that a lot of stale issues deserve > >> closing, but others are really long term goals. I do not want to block > >> this great idea but am just a bit worried about other great ideas > >> getting lost. So I would propose to tag anything we close or not > >> remove the stale tag, so these can be easily found. I am not worried > >> too much about PRs, just issues. > >> > >> On the other hand, we can always remove the gha again, so maybe we > >> should install it and see if it works for us. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 4:49 AM Kiran Chavala > >> <ki...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > >>> Good idea Vishesh > >>> > >>> +1 for using Githubactions > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Kiran > >>> > >>> From: Vishesh Jindal<vi...@shapeblue.com> > >>> Date: Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 6:33 PM > >>> To:d...@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Closing issues & PR after a certain time > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I was going through the issues and PRs, and I noticed that a lot of them > >>> are really old and some of them are waiting for the original author to > >>> reply. > >>> > >>> I wanted to discuss if we should add a github action > >>> (https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues) for auto > >>> closing the issues and PRs after a certain time. > >>> > >>> From the github actions' documentation, this is how it works: > >>> > >>> * Add a label "Stale" on issues and pull requests after 60 days of > >>> inactivity and comment on them > >>> * Close the stale issues and pull requests after 7 days of inactivity > >>> * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the > >>> stale label will be removed and the timer will restart > >>> > >>> Instead of using the defaults, I would like to: > >>> > >>> * > >>> mark the issue/PR stale after 90 days > >>> * > >>> close the stale issue/PR after 30 days > >>> > >>> Let me know if this sounds good. I will create the PR to set this up. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Vishesh > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Daan > >> -- Daan
