New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Policy / procedures for github stale action in the dask org #60
Comments
Thanks for this write-up. Noting here as a side-issue, as discussed in the maintenance team: we would like to remove "good first issue", as this has specific meaning for github and encourages python novices to try to claim issues they don't necessarily have the competence for. Instead, we would prefer something like "good-intro-to-dask", i.e., for those that can python already but have not worked specifically on dask before. |
@mrocklin proposed during the weekly check-in that we handle this with a notion of "active" labels --
|
I think all new and all that have been commented on in the past week (or month?) should be labeled active to start with. |
I don't think this is true, and it looks like the documentation has been updated recently to make that clearer. If you give it an empty string as the message, the bot should not leave a comment. See actions/stale#521
The github action seems like the better option for a few reasons:
|
Follow up question, is an "active" or "needs-triage" also required, or was that more being discussed as a workaround to avoid a lot of very old issues being labeled as stale and overwhelming the results (which is not a thing we need to worry about)? This would be relatively simple to do with a second yaml script using the same action, but I want to double check what the actual workflow is supposed to be. It's not super clear to me what the final decision was here. |
I don't think w a final decision was really arrived at (or if it was it was never implemented), what you are proposing sounds very reasonable to me @GenevieveBuckley |
Sorry @jsignell - do you want all new issues/PRs labelled with "needs triage"? |
I would like to revive this discussion. Ironically, it became a bit stale and has been open for almost two years now. There has been a recent change towards how we deal with labels which should be reflected in any of this. I'm struggling to understand what the outcome of any discussion is, what we decided and what the justification for this decision was. What I would love to see is
I understand that some concerns were raised about automatically closing and/or even commenting on tickets. I don't have the full context and would like to understand what led to our rather conservative approach to this so far. For the record, current status of the bot is
|
I am fully supportive of this. |
@jacobtomlinson and I met earlier today to talk through some general ideas around how to make better use of labels to prevent issues and PRs getting lost in the shuffle.
There is
probot/stale-bot
which is a github app run by (surprise) probot. There is also a newer github action that provides (it seems) all of the same functionality.Since the dask org already makes broad use of github actions, we think that's the way to go:https://github.com/actions/stale
I just read through the stale action config again and the github action will only apply labels to stale issues if it also comments in the issue, which was discussed during a weekly meeting as something we don't want.
So, probot stale-bot it is, or we can write our own action. Either way:
I propose that we have two "sweeps" of stale checks: short-term and medium-term.
Short-term: The "quick-ish response" pass.
All new issues currently get a "Needs triage" label, this should be extended to new PRs, too.
Any issue or PR that has a needs triage label and hasn't been touched for N days gets a "stale" label, where N is on the order of days. I think 4 days is a reasonable starting point.
For anyone on czar duty, issues/PRs that have a "Needs triage" and a "stale" label are of highest priority to respond to, if only to ping relevant parties or ask for a MRE, etc.
Medium-term: The "gone quiet" pass
Any issue or PR that hasn't been touched in 2(?) weeks gets a stale label added to it.
Exceptions and filtering:
We don't want this to apply to all issues and PRs -- for example, Feature Requests that haven't yet been picked up don't need to be marked as stale. Similarly, issues marked as "good first issue" and "good second issue" have been deliberately left to the wider community, so marking them as stale doesn't make much sense.
The stale-bot seems to only have options for excluding labels (creating an exemption list vs. an inclusion list).
I propose that we exempt issues and PRs with the following labels:
Good first issueI'm sure there are more labels that we can/should create and also add to the exemptions.
Finally, doing this will lead very quickly to a bunch of old issues being marked
stale
.I think we have a few choices there.
Thoughts? I'll note that doing this will require more regular label setting from all maintainers, which is a small but consistent extra bit of stuff to have to do.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: