Skip to content
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions MAINTAINER.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,6 +42,18 @@ The “Version Bump” CI uses this label to validate required updates (README v
go build ./cmd/readmevalidation && ./readmevalidation
```

## Stale PR Policy

The [`Stale PR Cleanup`](./.github/workflows/stale.yaml) workflow runs daily and manages inactive pull requests:
Comment on lines +45 to +47

- A PR with no activity for **15 days** gets the `stale` label.
- A PR with the `stale` label is **closed 3 days later** if it sees no further activity.
- A PR labeled `waiting-for-info` is **exempt** from the stale flow. Apply this label when the PR is waiting on the author so the bot doesn't penalize them for a reviewer-side pause.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I understand this. Should this be reversed?

If a PR author takes 15+ days to respond, the PR should probably be stalled and closed. However, if the author is waiting on a maintainer (e.g. you, me, Adele) then the author shouldn't be penalized.

Also I think (in this PR) we should set up a bot to automatically apply/un-apply and perhaps change the label to waiting-for-maintainer.

- Any new commit or comment removes the `stale` label automatically; the 15-day clock then restarts on the next stale sweep.
- Closed PRs can always be reopened by the author or a maintainer if work resumes.

The workflow only manages pull requests. Issues are not staled.

## Making a Release

### Automated Tag and Release Process
Expand Down
Loading