Idea to close staled PRs and issues isn’t that bad as I thought first. I’d like to object only one thing from stale bot README:
In an ideal world with infinite resources, there would be no need for this app.
But in any successful software project, there’s always more work to do than people to do it […]. Just making decisions about what work should and shouldn’t get done can exhaust all available resources.
Is it true, that if making a decision over staled PR is hard, then we should close it? (I assume that easy-to-decide issues don’t burn out maintainers)
For example, https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/35395 . The decision is clearly “yes we want this”, the status is “mmm, maybe someone wants to volunteer his time for this?”. Especially, given it has pitfalls.
Stale bot will close it. Is bot correct here? I think, it is correct, BUT, it should have a message:
So, you stranger came up here with exact same question or exact same problem and wonder why is it closed. You see, maintainers haven’t found TIME to solve this issue. Yep, it happens. We like the idea in general, so if you’d really like to add some priority, open new issue with new details. But, ideally, open a new PR with following issues resolved:
Open issues and PRs are prioritized over closed ones.
Sure, bot can’t list real “issues” of an issue or PR. So someone from steering committee or it’s extension should make this. And add a label
In the end, open issues and PRs will form a highest-priority (actual) queue, closed issues and PRs with tag
volunteer-wanted will form a second-priority queue (technical debt), and issues without this tag would be things maintainers no longer care. TODO: should the label assignment be revisited periodically?
Until maintainers are paid for fixing things, this would be fine. (btw, by maintainers I assume top contributors, but maybe it should be defined more precisely?)