Update stale issue workflow

[ggivo]

• Mark the Issue as stale only if marked with waiting-for-feedback
• Do not mark Issue/PR as stale if marked with feedback-provided
• Do not mark the Issue/PR as stale if assigned to a milestone

[atakavci]

i think waiting a year on an issue without labels waiting-for-feedback or waiting-for-triage is good enough reason to close. Are we confident with the exempt rules ?

[ggivo]

i think waiting a year on an issue without labels waiting-for-feedback or waiting-for-triage is good enough reason to close. Are we confident with the exempt rules ?

@atakavci

The problem is that the ‘stale’ rule was introduced a year ago, and now any issue over a year old is automatically marked as stale and scheduled for removal. Several issues are still awaiting team action but have been incorrectly marked as stale. If we manually remove the stale tag, the issue will be marked as stale again after 30 days, requiring constant monitoring and review.

[tishun]

Probably because it is Friday afternoon but I do not get anything here 🤯

The typical flow is:

• any issue - if untriaged - is skipped by the flow
• if an issue is triaged with "waiting-for-feedback" and more than X days have passed we mark it as stale
• if an issue has been stale for Y days we close it

Why would this flow not work right now?

Btw 365 days is insane IMHO. My suggestions for X and Y are 30 days and 14 days respectively (month an a half total)

[ggivo]

Why would this flow not work right now?

@tishun
Current flow does not consider only-labels: 'waiting-for-feedback' and will mark any issue as stale after the inactivity period is reached, even issues which are not waiting on any feedback but rather to someone to start working on them, or need triage.

The suggested workflow & periods make sense to me let me update the days-before-xx settigns

        days-before-stale: 30
        days-before-close: 14

[atakavci]

even issues which are not waiting on any feedback but rather to someone to start working
on them, or need triage.

so it sounds like it would be ok if we introduce another label than waiting-for-triage, and tag the ones "waiting for someone" with it. isnt it waiting-for-triage enough?

[ggivo]

so it sounds like it would be ok if we introduce another label than waiting-for-triage, and tag the ones "waiting for someone" with it. isnt it waiting-for-triage enough?

@atakavci
That is pretty much the idea.
waiting-for-triage - means the team needs to triage the issue and process it, at that step we decide if we need additional info, is there a reproducible example provided ... , and we can decide to request this info and mark it 'waiting-for-feedback'

waiting-for-feedback - means we have triaged the issue and requested additional inputs, if it is not provided in a reasonable time frame, mark the issue as stale and schedule it for closure.

This is what also @tishun provided as explanation in #4101 (comment)
and what lettuce library is following as an approach. And I think it make sense.

[atakavci]

LGTM