Open wojtek-t opened 2 years ago
/sig contributor-experience
xref https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/103151
I agree with this scoped starting point. A confirmed bug that is marked important/critical should not be autoclosed.
I could actually see the stale/rotten labels being useful/interesting to indicate inactivity/neglect, but not auto-closing
I could actually see the stale/rotten labels being useful/interesting to indicate inactivity/neglect, but not auto-closing
+1 - didn't think about it but it makes perfect sense
Also thanks for cross-referencing. Adding some folks here explicitly then: @dims @BenTheElder @sftim @ehashman @spiffxp
for reference, here's a query of the closed lifecycle/rotten
bugs with important or critical priority: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+label%3Alifecycle%2Frotten+label%3Akind%2Fbug+label%3Apriority%2Fimportant-longterm%2Cpriority%2Fimportant-soon%2Cpriority%2Fcritical-urgent+
Should we just go ahead and reopen them? [Not now, but after changing the bot]
The bot does search queries so changing them is trivial, but up to contributor experience to approve.
I think the problem is "confirmed" bug.
E.g. you could just apply /lifecycle frozen
to accepted bugs but anyone can do this. It's also true for /kind bug
and /priority critival-urgent
though.
I'd be happy to see accepted issues never closing, or rotting with a much longer interval (eg 12 months). We can still explicitly freeze key issues.
I agree that keeping their lifecycle state is useful knowledge, and I believe bugs labeled with triage/accepted
not closing is an acceptable middle-ground. Only org members can use the command, so I think there is sufficient gating to prevent abuse.
IMO - It's probably worth sending to the contribex/k-dev mailing lists+community meeting this week for broader discussion.
.... or even adding it to the Community Meeting agenda.
We just discussed that during the community meeting.
The outcome was that:
All of those are valid requests, but we shouldn't block (1) on the other.
So
here is the query (for k/k example) of the issues that should NOT be closed:
here is the query that is used currently: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues?q=is%3Aissue+-label%3Alifecycle%2Ffrozen+label%3Alifecycle%2Frotten
But I didn't yet figure out how to get the diff from those two. Any hints?
The configuration of the bot is here: https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/blob/master/config/jobs/kubernetes/sig-k8s-infra/trusted/sig-contribex-k8s-triage-robot.yaml
The process of recording consensus and notifying folks is here: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-contributor-experience/charter.md#cross-cutting-and-externally-facing-processes
@cblecker - thanks; the announcement have been sent in: https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/g/leads/c/PYjDxRh8ghQ
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
There are still things to do described in: https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/25967#issuecomment-1105612832
Can you render that as a checklist in the original issue comment so that everyone knows what still needs to be done? Thanks!
Can you render that as a checklist in the original issue comment so that everyone knows what still needs to be done? Thanks!
Done
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
:eyes:
/remove-lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
@wojtek-t do we have any further changes to discuss here?
we have a few related issues and I think it's gotten scattered over time ...
We were just chatting with @liggitt about reliability bar and one of the AIs from the discussions was to ensure that important bugs actually aren't closed.
Basically, any issue that is marked with: kind/bug priority/{important-soon,important-longterm,critical-urgent}
should not be touched by k8s-triage-robot for marking as state/rotten/closed
Couple different jobs in this file have to be updated to do this. https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/blob/705997b53f349731aa03c355c50637af574a2917/config/jobs/kubernetes/sig-k8s-infra/trusted/sig-contribex-k8s-triage-robot.yaml#L133
Summarizing later discussion, the AIs are:
@kubernetes/sig-contributor-experience /help wanted