Understanding the Helpfulness of Stale Bot for Pull-Based Development: An Empirical Study of 20 Large Open-Source Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pull Requests (PRs) that are neither progressed nor resolved clutter the list of PRs, making it difficult for the maintainers to manage and prioritize unresolved PRs. To automatically track, follow up, and close such inactive PRs, Stale bot was introduced by GitHub. Despite its increasing adoption, there are ongoing debates on whether using Stale bot alleviates or exacerbates the problem of inactive PRs. To better understand if and how Stale bot helps projects in their pull-based development workflow, we perform an empirical study of 20 large and popular open source projects. We find that Stale bot can help deal with a backlog of unresolved PRs, as the projects closed more PRs within the first few months of adoption. Moreover, Stale bot can help improve the efficiency of the PR review process as the projects reviewed PRs that ended up merged and resolved PRs that ended up closed faster after the adoption. However, Stale bot can also negatively affect the contributors, as the projects experienced a considerable decrease in their number of active contributors after the adoption. Therefore, relying solely on Stale bot to deal with inactive PRs may lead to decreased community engagement and an increased probability of contributor abandonment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".