Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Spike] Investigate why older issues are not following issue lifecycle #1528

Open
1 task
michael-valdron opened this issue Apr 17, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1566
Open
1 task

[Spike] Investigate why older issues are not following issue lifecycle #1528

michael-valdron opened this issue Apr 17, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1566

Comments

@michael-valdron
Copy link
Member

Which area/kind this issue is related to?

/kind task

/area ci

Issue Description

A large portion of our older issues are not following the issue lifecycle via the automation, i.e. label lifecycle/stale after 90 days then label lifecycle/rotten and close after an additional 60 days under lifecycle/stale.

An investigation should be conducted to find out how to resolve this to prune our backlog. Found solution should still not effect issues labelled lifecycle/frozen as this is intentional.

Acceptance Criteria

  • Find solution to correct the automation into including issues older than the automation was implemented
@Jdubrick
Copy link
Contributor

Was reading through the logs for our stale workflow here https://github.com/devfile/api/actions/runs/9200010231/job/25305811607 and noticed it is only processing 90 issues and has a warning about operations-per-run. Since I think the workflow is an authenticated user the rate limit shouldn't affect it and we may be able to try and jack this value up to cover all 300 something open issues.

@Jdubrick Jdubrick linked a pull request May 23, 2024 that will close this issue
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants