Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Nicholas Chammas
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Sean Owen-2
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Nicholas Chammas
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Sean Owen-2
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Hyukjin Kwon
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean?

When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below:

1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list.
2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days.
3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs.

Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter.
What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add?

I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable
so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs.


2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 3:23, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Hyukjin Kwon
It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions.
I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable.

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean?

When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below:

1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list.
2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days.
3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs.

Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter.
What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add?

I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable
so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs.


2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 3:23, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Nicholas Chammas
Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs:Β 

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 8일 (일) μ˜€μ „ 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions.
I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable.

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean?

When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below:

1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list.
2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days.
3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs.

Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter.
What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add?

I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable
so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs.


2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 3:23, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Nicholas Chammas
A brief update here: At the start of December when I started this thread we had almost 500 open PRs. Now that the Stale workflow has had time to catch up, we're down to ~280 open PRs.

More impressive than the number of stale PRs that got closed is how many PRs are active with relatively recent activity. It's a testament to how active this project is.

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs:Β 

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 8일 (일) μ˜€μ „ 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions.
I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable.

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean?

When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below:

1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list.
2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days.
3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs.

Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter.
What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add?

I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable
so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs.


2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 3:23, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing stale PRs with a GitHub Action

Hyukjin Kwon
Thanks for doing this Nicholas.

2020λ…„ 1μ›” 28일 (ν™”) μ˜€μ „ 8:15, Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
A brief update here: At the start of December when I started this thread we had almost 500 open PRs. Now that the Stale workflow has had time to catch up, we're down to ~280 open PRs.

More impressive than the number of stale PRs that got closed is how many PRs are active with relatively recent activity. It's a testament to how active this project is.

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just an FYI to everyone, we’ve merged in an Action to close stale PRs:Β 

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 8일 (일) μ˜€μ „ 9:49, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions.
I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable.

2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean?

When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below:

1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a review, I excluded it from stale PR list.
2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days.
3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs.

Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter.
What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which of them do you plan to add?

I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable
so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close some good and worthy PRs.


2019λ…„ 12μ›” 7일 (ν† ) μ˜€μ „ 3:23, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>λ‹˜μ΄ μž‘μ„±:
We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a policy against it or anything.
Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past?
I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling like this.

In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in Github?
I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be reopened.
Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that separately with bulk-close in the past.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s that topic again. πŸ˜„

We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015.Β 


GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs.Β 

What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the ability to even deploy a tool like this?

Nick