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

Kill stale bot #15898

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Kill stale bot #15898

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kesselb
Copy link
Contributor

@kesselb kesselb commented Jun 7, 2019

Bot is not working. People are confused because issues are tagged as stale without a reason.

FYI: probot/stale#207

@kesselb kesselb requested review from georgehrke and skjnldsv June 7, 2019 20:46
@skjnldsv
Copy link
Member

skjnldsv commented Jun 8, 2019

Actually I'd rather leave it.
It's tagging unsorted issues and it's pigging old ones. :)

@skjnldsv skjnldsv closed this Jun 8, 2019
@skjnldsv skjnldsv deleted the kesselb-patch-1 branch June 8, 2019 08:27
@skjnldsv
Copy link
Member

skjnldsv commented Jun 8, 2019

@kesselb since you've been doing lots of triage as well lately, let me give you a recent guidelines we talked about internally (we figured we should make them public somewhere on the server repo, but did not have the time, it was 4 days ago ;) )


All new issues have the 0. Needs triage label.
All issues in the repo should have at least one blue status label
(either 1. to develop, or a progress one like 2. developing...)

Bugs:

  • If the bug is reproducible, we remove the 0. Needs triage and
    apply the 1. to develop
  • If we need more info, we MUST add the 'needs info' after pinging the
    author. We leave the 0. Needs triage label.
  • If it is not, we close
  • We should never remove the 0. Needs triage without adding another
    blue progress label

Features.

We come to a point where we cannot really handle al the feature request
load. So we have to draw a line.
We all have different opinions, but I think we can all agree that we
globally have the same vision for our project. So it's fine to say this
is not a feature we want in nextcloud. Lots of them are redundant, so
it's easy to manage ('can you add an option for xxx?')

  • If the feature really make sense, we remove the '0. Needs triage'
    and add 1. to develop label
  • If we need more info, same as bugs, we add the 'needs info' label
    and ping the author or other devs for input
  • If the request clearly does NOT register itself into our product,
    it's safe to say that the request is quite low and that we think it does
    not fit here.
  • If the request is interesting, but most likely not going to happen
    by one of us as this is a very low priority, don't hesitate to mention
    it.

Thanks a lot for the help!

@skjnldsv
Copy link
Member

skjnldsv commented Jun 8, 2019

I'm going to also add that I've been sorting old issues a lot lately!
Pinging old ones if needed or adding back the 0.needs triage on unknown status.

https://github.com/nextcloud/server/issues?q=-label%3A%220.+Needs+triage%22+-label%3A%221.+to+develop%22+-label%3A%222.+developing%22+-label%3A%223.+to+review%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc+label%3Abug+is%3Aopen

@go2sh
Copy link
Contributor

go2sh commented Jun 8, 2019

@skjnldsv I can understand the intentions of @kesselb. I saw a lot of issues with valid bugs, which are now closed by the stale bot. The only thing missing was a propper triage, which often can't be performed by the reporter and I think this is not good.

@skjnldsv
Copy link
Member

skjnldsv commented Jun 8, 2019

@go2sh oh yes, I totally get this as well :)
I thought about killing it as well!

Okay, let's turn it off for now, and figure how to get the onlylabel working.
I guess we can still ping people manually! 🤗

@skjnldsv
Copy link
Member

skjnldsv commented Jun 8, 2019

Disabled!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants