Updating stale.yml to add the support for actions/stale

[gaurangkudale]

Adding support for Actions/stale #27004

[gaurangkudale]

Hi @a1012112796 ,
Can you please review this PR and let me know if there are any suggestions

[lng2020]

The stale action uses Github Actions instead of some stale bot. Probably you should add a cron job under .github/workflows

[gaurangkudale]

The stale action uses Github Actions instead of some stale bot. Probably you should add a cron job under .github/workflows

Yes I have added it as a cron job under .github/workflows

[lng2020]

1. delete the unnecessary file, comment, and KV pair
2. fix CI failure
3. don't be so rushed. On the first attempt, you asked for the review without knowing how stale action works, and on the second you asked for the review when the yaml file still has an indent error. Both mistakes are quite basic if you give them some attention. The reviewers will carry out their duties as usual, so there's no need to tag them in a hurry.

[denyskon]

We're currently discussing a restructuring of our labels, so we should wait until it's done before merging this.

Also I don't think we should close PRs. Give maintainers time, some of us go through the list regularly and try to review especially old PRs which have remained untouched for a while.

[lng2020]

Is there a particular reason to use v3 instead of the current latest version v8?
The options in the docs seem to use '-' instead of the camel case. And some of the labels are not suited for our current label system.

[a1012112796]

ping @denyskon @go-gitea/technical-oversight-committee

[lng2020]

Is there a particular reason to use v3 instead of the current latest version v8? The options in the docs seem to use '-' instead of the camel case. And some of the labels are not suited for our current label system.

I think those problems still exist.

[delvh]

I'm not sure about this PR:
On one hand, many issues become stale and cannot be reproduced in later versions.
However, from a user perspective I always hate it when I find my issue online, it is closed, and the reason for closing was inactivity.

[jolheiser]

Having been involved with projects using and not using a stalebot, I think my preference is also to not have one where possible.

We have a lot of open issues, however I think many of the issues that could benefit from some automation (i.e. reported on much older versions) are already labeled such that this config will likely miss them. (confirmed being the big one, as they were "confirmed" at the time but may no longer be relevant)

[lunny]

Since giteabot will close an issue which have issue/needs-feedback label with no reponse for a month. I think we can close this PR and even remove the old stale file.

[denyskon]

I also think a stale bot won't be a benefit.