- Better labels upon an issue going stale will help triage better. There
other PRs with "needs update" that are manually put and therefore we
can't explicitly filter for stalebot.
- For management purposes, being able to view how many issues are
auto-closed helps as well.
Pasted from the old one. Maybe we can just rename it but this is what
github's web interface led me to create.
I want to make sure that they at least create the template so that they
read it. If they then choose to ignore it that's fine, but it should
always pop up. Basically I want to keep the old behavior. Open to
alternatives.
We could also play around with the new issue forms:
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/syntax-for-issue-forms
Or label this one the "bug" template, and create a second one that is
blank but has the header text paragraph. I haven't seen a way to make
something appear in all templates, including the "blank" one, other than
just turning off blank templates.
We're a few years behind the curve on this one, but using "master" as a
programming term is a callous practice that explicitly uses the
historical institution of slavery as a cheap, racist metaphor. Switch to
using "main", as it's the new default in git and GitHub.
* Replace probot/stale app with a Github Action
This creates a Github Actions workflow which seems to be the supported
way of automarking issues as stale. Adds a dry-run flag to test it out.
* small fixups
* cron typo
* disable unnecessary permissions
* use friendlier name
While I expect stale bot will close out 150 - 250 issues, that'll still leave us with 400+ open issues. My concern is that with a threshold of 6 months, most of these 400 issues will be in the same state 6 months from now and stale bot will annoy people by asking them if their issue is still valid too frequently.
Doubling the stale threshold to 1 year should mitigate this problem a bit I think.
