Change stale threshold #5398
Change stale threshold #5398
Conversation
|
A critical exception has occurred: |
|
As mentioned in the previous PR, I'm generally in favor of this but I would like to wait to hear from other editors before merging, or discussing it at fortnightly meeting. Hopefully we can get some feedback relatively quickly, but if not then we can wait 3-4 weeks to merge like usual. |
|
I had (again incorrectly) assumed you had approved with your comment. I guess I will wait for an explicit review with approval status. @SamWilsn @gcolvin @axic @lightclient if you approve of any of the CI-changing PRs, please do explicitly approve the PR to signal your approval (otherwise, we have no way of knowing). |
|
|
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
|
I think 7days to call an issue stale is a bit extreme. By that standard, this issue have been stale. I'd like to keep it 90-days or at least 60 days to welcome contributor input. |
|
I think 3-6 months before marking stale is fine then give 1-2 weeks to respond. |
|
@SamWilsn merge? |
That's the point. It keeps PR authors engaged in the process, to re-request editors for review or to remind them to fix stuff. It won't be closed until 3 months have passed. Changes can still be made in that time, and that will reset the clock. |
|
Got it. For mercy, can we say "stale" in |
|
I'd say 1 week is the sweet spot. If neither an editor nor an author has touched something for one week, it's probably best to give everyone a prod. |
* Update stale bot config * Remove extra space * Increase threshold * Undo non-relevant changes * Flip flop * Update stale.yml * Update .github/workflows/stale.yml Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
See #5360