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

feat: Configurable stale/close workflow #4

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
rootwork opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed
1 of 2 tasks

feat: Configurable stale/close workflow #4

rootwork opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement Enhancement of the code, not introducing new features. stale There has not been activity on this issue or PR for quite some time.

Comments

@rootwork
Copy link
Contributor

rootwork commented Nov 1, 2021

Feature Request

Describe the Feature Request

I think the project should be more transparent about a) including this specific workflow, and b) allowing it to be more easily configurable.

My projects are mostly pretty small. If I get contributions, I'm willing to give a long time for contributors to respond to feedback, and I might never close an issue, even if it hasn't had activity, in case someone is willing to take it up at some point in the future. (I don't mind issues being closed so much as them being locked to new comments.)

PR #2 is actually a good example. For your project it may make sense to mark it as stale after 30 days, and close it a week later, but for me that would be too quick. I don't have many contributors, and I want to give them more leeway.

If this is added to an existing project, maintainers might not realize this is one of the workflows being enabled, and/or might not realize the timeline that's now being enforced.

I realize one can go in and just remove the workflow or change the days-before-stale or days-before-close values, but this is about surfacing something that could be a surprising or disruptive change for a small project.

Describe Preferred Solution

  1. Assuming you don't want to inquire in the setup process about every single workflow, consider making this one a special case and allowing people to enable/disable it on setup.

  2. If enabled, inquire in the setup what the values of days-before-stale and days-before-close should be.

  3. Note in the project documentation how to remove or change this workflow (and maybe workflows in general) if it isn't important to a project.

Describe Alternatives

Just do number 3 above. To me that would be sub-optimal, but better than not mentioning it at all.

Related Code

Additional Context

N/A

If the feature request is approved, would you be willing to submit a PR?
(Help can be provided if you need assistance submitting a PR)

  • Yes
  • No
@rootwork rootwork added the enhancement Enhancement of the code, not introducing new features. label Nov 1, 2021
@dec0dOS
Copy link
Owner

dec0dOS commented Nov 4, 2021

Hey, @rootwork, that is a great suggestion.
I've been struggling with too early stale trigger with my another repo.

It should be disabled by default by the cookiecutter flag.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2021

There hasn't been any activity on this issue recently, so we clean up some of the older and inactive issues.
Please make sure to update to the latest version and check if that solves the issue. Let us know if that works for you by leaving a comment 👍.
This issue has now been marked as stale and will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale There has not been activity on this issue or PR for quite some time. label Dec 5, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 12, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement Enhancement of the code, not introducing new features. stale There has not been activity on this issue or PR for quite some time.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants