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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Configure probot/no-response to allow 28 days when requesting more info on an issue #18139

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 2, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jasonrudolph
Copy link
Member

jasonrudolph commented Sep 28, 2018

Description of the Change

Building on the probot/no-response configuration implemented in #18077, this pull request adjusts the timeframe to allow 28 days for the issue author to reply to a request for more information.

Currently, when someone opens an issue and we need additional information, a maintainer will ask the issue author for more information and the maintainer will apply the more-information-needed label. Up to six months can go by without the issue author responding to the request for more information. In these cases, because we still lack the requested information, the issue is not actionable. To help Atom's maintainers focus our attention on actionable issues, the No Response app will now close these non-actionable issues after 28 days, and it will post a comment explaining why the issue was closed:

This issue has been automatically closed because there has been no response to our request for more information from the original author. With only the information that is currently in the issue, we don't have enough information to take action. Please reach out if you have or find the answers we need so that we can investigate further.

At that point, if the original author (or anyone else) replies with the requested information, we can re-open the issue.

Alternate Designs

N/A

Possible Drawbacks

When we merge this change, the app's first "sweep" will identify about 40 issues that are more than 28 days old and have the more-information-needed label. For anyone watching the atom/atom repository, or anyone subscribed to all of those issues, they'll receive a batch of notifications for all of those issues at once. 馃摠

Verification Process

N/A

@Arcanemagus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Arcanemagus commented Sep 28, 2018

Since the bulk of the issues have already been closed by the 180 timeout we probably aren't going to hit any problems, but do we want to try to figure out probot/no-response#24 before merging this?

@jasonrudolph

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

jasonrudolph commented Oct 1, 2018

Since the bulk of the issues have already been closed by the 180 timeout we probably aren't going to hit any problems, but do we want to try to figure out probot/no-response#24 before merging this?

I would indeed like to look into that issue. I'll bring it up during today's sprint planning meeting to see if we can pull it into this sprint.

@jasonrudolph

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

jasonrudolph commented Oct 1, 2018

Since the bulk of the issues have already been closed by the 180 timeout we probably aren't going to hit any problems, but do we want to try to figure out probot/no-response#24 before merging this?

@Arcanemagus: The team discussed this during the today's sprint planning meeting. We do want to address probot/no-response#24, and we're hoping to do so during this sprint.

Today, when the bug in probot/no-response#24 occurs, the issue author sees that no-response bot closed the issue. If the issue author (or anyone else) clicks on no-response bot, they can likely understand why the issue was closed:

demo

The issue author is also still free to leave a comment on the issue.

With that in mind, we'd prefer not hold up this change. Unless you feel strongly that this PR should be blocked until probot/no-response#24 is resolved, I'd like to merge this PR and then circle back around to investigate probot/no-response#24. What do you think?

@Arcanemagus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Arcanemagus commented Oct 1, 2018

Oh like I said initially we are unlikely to hit it again as we already did the bulk of the closing with the earlier 180 timeout on a response. Fine to merge by me!

@jasonrudolph jasonrudolph merged commit 6fdcd28 into master Oct 2, 2018

3 checks passed

Atom Pull Requests #20180928.1 succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@jasonrudolph jasonrudolph deleted the dot-github-update branch Oct 2, 2018

This was referenced Oct 2, 2018

This was referenced Oct 2, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can鈥檛 perform that action at this time.