Hello,
you've probably noticed that Tomer attempted to clean out our PR table
closing old and frozen requests which is great, but I would like to
propose if we could create new label assigning it to all PRs which were
closed for this reason. I would like to return to them some day and this
would be great chance to easily find them.
+1 - not sure if the case for need for filtering will occur in the future,
but why not.
At least we can get some stats from that 
– Ivan
Hello,
you’ve probably noticed that Tomer attempted to clean out our PR table
closing old and frozen requests which is great, but I would like to
propose if we could create new label assigning it to all PRs which were
closed for this reason. I would like to return to them some day and this
would be great chance to easily find them.–
Later,
Lukas #lzap Zapletal–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> +1 - not sure if the case for need for filtering will occur in the future,
> but why not.
> At least we can get some stats from that
I realized shortly that we already have Reached an impasse label which
could be reused. Tomer, is it possible you assign all of those, and in
the future please?
I'm not sure that reached an impasse is the correct label for this case -
reached an impasse means we couldn't agree on something.
Maybe we should have the prproccessor automatically add a "stale" or
"inactive" label to PRs that had no activity in over a month or two?
That would also make finding those PRs easy in the future.
+1 - not sure if the case for need for filtering will occur in the
future,
but why not.
At least we can get some stats from thatI realized shortly that we already have Reached an impasse label which
could be reused. Tomer, is it possible you assign all of those, and in
the future please?–
Later,
Lukas #lzap Zapletal
–
Have a nice day,
Tomer Brisker
Red Hat Engineering
The bot would make that feel more automated, less personal, which is a good
thing IMO
when it goes to closing inactive PRs. +1 on the idea.
– Ivan
I’m not sure that reached an impasse is the correct label for this case -
reached an impasse means we couldn’t agree on something.
Maybe we should have the prproccessor automatically add a “stale” or
"inactive" label to PRs that had no activity in over a month or two?
That would also make finding those PRs easy in the future.On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Lukas Zapletal lzap@redhat.com wrote:
+1 - not sure if the case for need for filtering will occur in the
future,
but why not.
At least we can get some stats from thatI realized shortly that we already have Reached an impasse label which
could be reused. Tomer, is it possible you assign all of those, and in
the future please?–
Later,
Lukas #lzap Zapletal–
Have a nice day,
Tomer Brisker
Red Hat Engineering–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> The bot would make that feel more automated, less personal, which is a good
> thing IMO
> when it goes to closing inactive PRs. +1 on the idea.
Yeah, I like "Inactive" label and bot as well.
Here is the bot: https://github.com/theforeman/prprocessor/pull/38