| 22 Mar 2023 |
 tea | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
I'm genuinely curious why you think closing is a good idea because closing is very revertable, just like removing a label.
Closing to me means "this is broken and not being worked on". "don't waste review time here". | 11:27:07 |
 K900 | But "stale" doesn't mean "broken" | 11:27:25 |
| tea | a lot of stale solutions autoclose, with this ifea | 11:27:25 |
| tea | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
But "stale" doesn't mean "broken" yes, but if it is stale, why hasn't it been merged? | 11:27:41 |
| K900 | Because we don't have enough review/triage bandwidth | 11:27:55 |
| K900 | Like, there's literally just not enough people reviewing stuff and getting it merged | 11:28:08 |
| K900 | Especially for packages where the maintainers are inactive | 11:28:27 |
| tea | then why is the stale label there? | 11:28:28 |
| tea | you can always sort by oldest prs | 11:28:36 |
| K900 | Honestly, I don't really know | 11:28:44 |
| K900 | Presumably some people use it for filtering? | 11:28:49 |
| K900 | I don't | 11:28:52 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I think it's kind of useful for reminding involved people about it getting stale. Like, sometimes people just forget with all the stuff they have open | 11:29:31 |
 Wanja Hentze | subjectively, I've had an *easier* time getting stuff reviewed and merged recently than I used to 1-2 years ago | 11:30:07 |
| Wanja Hentze | regardless of number of open PRs | 11:30:20 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I think it's kind of useful for reminding involved people about it getting stale. Like, sometimes people just forget with all the stuff they have open Same reminder can be seen as a question, "can this be closed now?". Of course one could also find such PRs through the search, but then a person that was not involved in the discussion at all might have to answer this question. Better ask the people who are already in the thread. | 11:31:08 |
| K900 | In reply to@whentze:matrix.org
subjectively, I've had an *easier* time getting stuff reviewed and merged recently than I used to 1-2 years ago Definitely | 11:31:07 |
| K900 | But also, we have more bandwidth doesn't mean we have enough bandwidth | 11:31:13 |
| Wanja Hentze | yes | 11:31:21 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | So I think I'd be fine without a stale bot whatsoever, but it is not completely useless either | 11:31:41 |
| K900 | One of my extremely backburner projects is something like bors for nixpkgs that would allow maintainers to merge changes to their packages without having the commit bit | 11:31:57 |
 snowytrees | I personally like it because it’s easier to distinguish unfinished/abandoned PRs from failed ones. | 11:32:09 |
| snowytrees | When they aren’t closed* | 11:32:14 |
| K900 | That should help a lot with the queue | 11:32:16 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
One of my extremely backburner projects is something like bors for nixpkgs that would allow maintainers to merge changes to their packages without having the commit bit Yes, pretty pretty please. This would enable a lot of things for us | 11:32:35 |
| tea | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
One of my extremely backburner projects is something like bors for nixpkgs that would allow maintainers to merge changes to their packages without having the commit bit yes | 11:34:26 |
| Wanja Hentze | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
One of my extremely backburner projects is something like bors for nixpkgs that would allow maintainers to merge changes to their packages without having the commit bit yesss | 11:34:36 |
| tea | I think that was discussed in last archteam meeting? | 11:34:39 |
| Wanja Hentze | I shilled bors there yeah | 11:34:53 |
| K900 | The problem is we can't really just do bors because it doesn't understand this kind of thing | 11:35:19 |
