OpenSearch Release bot?

[dblock]

Is the name for OpenSearch-bot too generic? Are there plans to expand it to other features than the release process?

Otherwise maybe it should be called "OpenSearch Release Bot"?

[BigSamu]

Hi @dblock,

We suggested that name because the architecture and design of the bot currently allow expansibility for other functionalities that the community may like to implement.

One that I have on top of my head is one for sending reminders to open Pull Requests that haven't been updated in a while (e.g., one month) and move them to drafts.

Of course, we can change the name of it and make it more specific. @ashwin-pc what is your opinion on this?

[JohnathonBowers]

Hi, @dblock . Thanks for your question! Like @BigSamu said, we want to leave room for additional features as the community shows interest. However, we could make the name of the bot more specific to better indicate its purpose at a glance. Would something like "OpenSearch-DevOps-bot" accomplish this? (It does sound a little wordy, though.) Open to other suggestions!

[dblock]

Another option could be to match opensearch-build which is the release tooling repo, therefore making it OpenSearch-build-bot.

[BigSamu]

I got another idea for the multipurpose bot that just came to my head. Now, I am fixing a PR from one of the contributions I made to the OSCI programme, and I realise that many PRs and issues have an OSCI label inserted. What if we give that responsibility to the bot to add those types of labels? This is a maintainer task that we could free up to reduce workload.

This is fairly simple. Upon assigning an individual to an issue, the bot can check whether an individual is from the OSCI program or not by checking a JSON file or a simple database having all GitHub usernames of the participants. If the contributor is from the OSCI program, the bot adds the' OSCI' label. If not, no action is taken.

What do you think?

[dblock]

I think this is a good conversation.

My opinion generally is that specialized bots that implement features are better than generic ones (e.g. a "Labels Creation Bot" vs. "OpenSearch Project Bot") because they are generic features that can be used for other projects.

It sounds like ya'll going for the opposite of what I like best, a bot that does all kinds of things in the opensearch-project GitHub org. It could be left as is, or be OpenSearch Project Bot.

Either way I think the maintainers of this repo should decide what to do with this issue. Doing nothing is a great option as always, feel free to close it!

[ashwin-pc]

@dblock I remember an early conversation we had where you suggested that we have a generic bot for all OpenSearch related task, which is why when @BigSamu suggested expanding this bot to do so, it made sense to me. I think your rationale was that we had too many GitHub workflows that weren't owned by the org so have a single bot to manage all these workflows was desirable. Also the owners of the repo are a part of OSCI and want to transfer ownership of the bot to our org, in which case this makes more sense.

Personally, it's too early to decide on the trajectory of the bot and prefer keeping this bot specific to the release process. When we have more use cases, we can consolidate the bots into one. We may even just reuse this bot to be that unified bot. But I wouldn't start there.

An alternative name here can be OpenSearch Changelog bot

[BigSamu]

Thanks @dblock, @ashwin-pc,

Thanks for the feedback. It makes sense of what you say. We can change the name when transferring ownership of the repo to the OpenSearch domain (task in issue #46).

Regarding the names, I think the one @ashwin-pc suggested is the most suitable in my opinion.

Closing issue for now!

[dblock]

Thanks everyone! Please Capitalize the OpenSearch CHANGELOG Bot accordingly ;) And thank you for indulging me in my OCD!