Open Stack

Hunt, James O wrote:
> Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 08:36, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org 
>>     I don't see any issue with using Probot apps, except I guess that it
>>     locks us in even deeper into GitHub (but that ship has sailed already).
> 
> Yes and no. "Yes", because we'd be using a service which we believe is 
> hosted on GitHub. But "no" because as that tool uses a YAML 
> configuration file, we're encoding our process in a program 
> ("infrastructure as code"). [...]

Also arguably the stale/autoclosing feature is something you could 
easily drop, so it does not significantly lock you further in :)

>>     it's
>>     the action of having a bot closing issues automatically that is
>>     debatable...
> 
> OK. so although I think we are providing enough time for users to 
> respond, how about we change the stalebot config so that we don't 
> actually close the issues - we simpy add the "stale" tag? [2]
> 
> We can then assess the "rate of staleness" to see if we need to turn on 
> the auto-close feature.
> 
> And *iff* we do end up having to enable the auto-close feature, it would 
> probably make sense to do the following (at that point):
> 
> - Change pulls.daysUntilStale from 30 to 15.
> - Change issues.daysUntilStale from 60 to 45.
> - Change daysUntilClose from 7 to 22.
> 
> That wouldn't change _when_ the close occurred, but would give user more 
> notice as we'd be warning them "about halfway" in terms of days before 
> we close them.

That sounds like a great plan. Maybe we'll realize that adding "stale" 
tag is enough of a reminder to make the whole issue irrelevant. And if 
autoclose is still desirable, 45+22 sounds better to me than 60+7.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)