I do not think that "a comment" is a sufficient indicator of the
capacity and interest to work on the issue. While this will suffice
for the first pass of identifying issues which will not be worked
upon, it is also easy to create a different-than-desired outcome by
Regardless of the intrinsic goodness of an issue, if a
developer/maintainer is unable to review and plan for it (not in a
"will do this some day when I get the time") then we should
close/archive those issues. For future runs of the stale bot we'll
have to determine what is the desired outcome - to keep resusicating
topics or, organize for just the ones which can be worked upon.
> Hi all,
> With the introduction of stale bot in github workflow one can
> observe lots of github issues have been identified and marked as
> I will request every developer and maintainer to take some time and
> revisit these marked issues. Identifying those which can be worked
> upon can prevent them from getting closed.
> So, please act soon as you can see the bot says:
> "It will be closed in 2 weeks if no one responds with a comment here."
> . https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/24386/ > .https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/labels/WONTFIX >
[hidden email] | TZ: UTC+0530 | +91 99606 03294
kadalu.io : Making it easy to provision storage in k8s!