| 22 Mar 2023 |
 Wanja Hentze | and instead of filtering for the tag you can always filter for "last updated" or something | 11:19:06 |
 K900 | In reply to@noob_tea:matrix.org
people were talking about a "pr apocalypse" with like 2000 open prs. we are constantly over 3000-3100 now So? | 11:19:40 |
| K900 | We can just close all of them and be a t0 | 11:19:49 |
| K900 | * We can just close all of them and be at 0 | 11:19:50 |
| K900 | But the goal isn't to just get to 0 by any means necessary, is it | 11:19:58 |
| Wanja Hentze | PR apocalypse happened at exactly 2012 open PRs like the dead sea scrolls predicted | 11:20:02 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
people were talking about a "pr apocalypse" with like 2000 open prs. we are constantly over 3000-3100 now People were also talking about global overpopulation a century ago, when we had only a billion people on earth. | 11:20:15 |
 tea | I would prefer closing stale PRS but i see it isn't a popular opinion so | 11:20:30 |
| K900 | Like, we definitely need more triage bandwidth | 11:20:34 |
| K900 | But auto-closing PRs doesn't get you more triage bandwidth | 11:20:44 |
| K900 | It just makes the number look smalle | 11:20:57 |
| K900 | * It just makes the number look smaller | 11:20:58 |
| K900 | But then again, so does closing literally every PR the second it's opened | 11:21:20 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
I would prefer closing stale PRS but i see it isn't a popular opinion so Again, feel free to do so if you think something can/should be closed. But blindly closing everything stale is not an option | 11:21:23 |
| Wanja Hentze | if anything, I feel like stalebotting leads to more stuff being opened | 11:21:44 |
| Wanja Hentze | because somebody will make a new issue and somebody else re-opens the old one or something | 11:22:01 |
| Wanja Hentze | not sure how frequent that is but I've seen it happen | 11:22:20 |
| tea | let's agree to disagree then | 11:25:09 |
| K900 | I'm genuinely curious why you think closing is a good idea | 11:25:34 |
| K900 | Like, I don't see any benefit except things looking slightly cleaner | 11:25:56 |
| 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 |
