[asterisk-dev] GitHub: Side Note: What makes us "special"?

[Joshua C. Colp]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 5:27 PM George Joseph <gjoseph at sangoma.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:16 PM <asterisk at phreaknet.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2023 2:53 PM, George Joseph wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Speaking of workflows...  If you want to see the workflows and
>> > actions we've written so far, check out the asterisk/asterisk-gh-test
>> (the
>> > .github/workflows directory) and asterisk/asterisk-ci-actions repos.
>>  If
>> > you're experienced with GitHub workflows, feedback is appreciated.
>> Thanks, George, et al, for all this amazing work. I admit Gerrit has
>> grown on me a little over the years, but other developers I've discussed
>> with do prefer GitHub and I'm eager to give this a try when it's all
>> ready.
>>
>> One question from looking through some of the workflows that are up now:
>>
>> https://github.com/asterisk/asterisk-gh-test/blob/master/.github/workflows/CloseStaleIssues.yml
>>
>> I'm a bit curious about the auto-closing functionality:
>>
>
>>   * Do you think 14-21 days is a sufficient threshold for most issues?
>>     It seems potentially a bit low to me. For example, once an issue is
>>     triaged and opened, will it just be closed automatically 3 weeks
>>     later if it hasn't been resolved by then? Or are issues in the
>>     'open' state exempt from this, this is purely for triage to weed out
>>     junk issues?
>>
>   * Case in point: one vendor I deal with frequently has this annoying
>>     auto-close functionality in their system which triggers after about
>>     2 weeks or so. Often more time is required on one of our ends just
>>     to follow up on the last thing, so there is a lot of inevitable
>>     "commenting to avoid auto closure" and this just adds a lot of noise
>>     into the tickets.
>>   * Is there any connection with reviews/PRs in progress? Suppose an
>>     issue is open and maybe on the verge of being stale, but someone has
>>     submitted a PR against. Changes can often take much longer than 3
>>     weeks to merge, so it wouldn't make sense for an issue to close
>>     itself in that case. So I'm concerned perhaps that might not be
>>     sufficient time.
>>
>
> We're still thinking about the issues process but...
>
> The action allows you to specify labels that make an issue exempt from
> auto-closure.  I was thinking that when a PR gets submitted, we'd look for
> the "Resolves: #issuenum" tag in the commit message, then add an
> "InProgress" label to the issue to prevent it from being auto closed.  The
> issue would then get closed when the PR is closed.
>
> I'm also thinking it would only close issues that have been inactive and
> assigned to the submitter.  Like the "Waiting for Feedback" status in Jira.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

I think issues should only be closed if we are waiting for feedback from
the reporter during the triage process. Once accepted the issue should
remain open until either automatically closed through PR, or someone else
closes it. Same as now.

-- 
Joshua C. Colp
Asterisk Project Lead
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at www.sangoma.com and www.asterisk.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20230404/1260d318/attachment.html>