Skip to content
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

stale bot: tune up a little #100460

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

stale bot: tune up a little #100460

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@blaggacao
Copy link
Contributor

@blaggacao blaggacao commented Oct 14, 2020

180 days is quite a large threshold to indicate that an issue or PR is stale
As the authors of the stalebot put it:

To some, a robot trying to close stale issues may seem inhospitable or offensive to contributors. But the alternative is to disrespect them by setting false expectations and implicitly ignoring their work. This app makes it explicit: if work is not progressing, then it's stale. A comment is all it takes to keep the conversation alive.

So what is stale? A conversation where nobody is interacting for 60 or 90 days, probably anyone would agree it's is stale.

Let's remember: un-staleing just needs a comment.

Motivation for this change

https://github.com/probot/stale#is-closing-stale-issues-really-a-good-idea

180 days is quite a large threshold to indicate that an issue or PR is stale
As the authors of the stalebot put it:

> To some, a robot trying to close stale issues may seem inhospitable or offensive to contributors. But the alternative is to disrespect them by setting false expectations and implicitly ignoring their work. This app makes it explicit: if work is not progressing, then it's stale. A comment is all it takes to keep the conversation alive.

So what is stale? A conversation where nobody is interacting for 60 or 90 days, probably anyone would agree it's _is_ stale.

Let's remember: un-staleing just needs a comment.
@zowoq
Copy link
Contributor

@zowoq zowoq commented Oct 14, 2020

180 days is quite a large threshold to indicate that an issue or PR is stale

This was discussed in NixOS/rfcs#51.

As there was so much discussion about the 180 day timeout in the RFC I don't really see it being changed without an RFC amendment.

@blaggacao

This comment has been hidden.

@blaggacao
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blaggacao blaggacao commented Oct 14, 2020

Can't we just experiment for a while, and if there is bad feedback, roll it back? @ryantm please feel entitled to make the final call, if this can't proceed within reasonable effort, rather let's close this.

@zowoq I think the accepted formulation makes it almost explicit to open for experiment:

Start by using the following .github/stale.yml configurationfile:

(bold not in original text)

@ryantm
Copy link
Member

@ryantm ryantm commented Oct 14, 2020

@blaggacao It was pretty clear to me from the RFC feedback that it was only accepted because of the long period before things were marked stale, so I agree with @zowoq that we'd need an RFC amendment to make this change.

@blaggacao
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blaggacao blaggacao commented Oct 14, 2020

@ryantm Ok, if that's needed, I can go ahead and pull something together quickly in the style of https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0071-retired-committers-amendment.md If you don't oppose, I'll put you as co-author, agreed?

@ryantm
Copy link
Member

@ryantm ryantm commented Oct 14, 2020

@blaggacao I don't think the ROI of the effort is high enough, so I'd prefer to not be a co-author.

@ryantm
Copy link
Member

@ryantm ryantm commented Oct 20, 2020

Let's close this until the RFC is finished.

@ryantm ryantm closed this Oct 20, 2020
@blaggacao blaggacao deleted the patch-3 branch Aug 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants