NFO:root:PR pull request #11 can be approved by kwankyu
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/runner/work/sage/sage/.github/sync_labels.py", line 913, in <module>
    gh.run(action, label=label, rev_state=rev_state)
  File "/home/runner/work/sage/sage/.github/sync_labels.py", line 785, in run
    self.on_label_add(label)
  File "/home/runner/work/sage/sage/.github/sync_labels.py", line 715, in on_label_add
    self.approve()
  File "/home/runner/work/sage/sage/.github/sync_labels.py", line 560, in approve
    self.review('--approve')
  File "/home/runner/work/sage/sage/.github/sync_labels.py", line 554, in review
    self.gh_cmd('review', arg)
TypeError: GhLabelSynchronizer.gh_cmd() missing 1 required positional argument: 'option'
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

I've fixed this. Can you try again?

I am not sure if the message "dismissed the stale review because @kwankyu requested changes" is useful.

The bot feels gentle now overall. I feel that the bot is supportive and not overly restrictive. I like it.

@kwankyu reverts decision --> @kwankyu reverted decision

Or perhaps all messages (after label changes) can be the same @kwankyu changed the review state.

This is an old question: Which do you prefer "review state" or "review status"?

I was promoting "status label" because I thought that there is a hierarchy: "needs info -> needs work -> needs review -> positive review". Now I won't insist any more because I value consistency more. So whichever you prefer, I am willing to follow and want to update the developer guide with consistent terminology "state label" or "status label" depending on your decision.

I am not sure if the message "dismissed the stale review because @kwankyu requested changes" is useful.

I agree. But unfortunately it is unavoidable when stale reviews are dismissed. The only thing I can change (but not omit) is the text in the box ("because @kwankyu requested changes").

The bot feels gentle now overall. I feel that the bot is supportive and not overly restrictive. I like it.

Thanks!

@kwankyu reverts decision --> @kwankyu reverted decision

Or perhaps all messages (after label changes) can be the same @kwankyu changed the review state.

I would prefer different messages because then it becomes clear where they are coming from.

This is an old question: Which do you prefer "review state" or "review status"?

I was promoting "status label" because I thought that there is a hierarchy: "needs info -> needs work -> needs review -> positive review". Now I won't insist any more because I value consistency more. So whichever you prefer, I am willing to follow and want to update the developer guide with consistent terminology "state label" or "status label" depending on your decision.

My observation is that GitHub consistently uses the term state (but consistency is not GitHub's strength). In Trac we were used to the term status (which sounds rather German to me). Therefore, one way to maintain consistency would be to use state for the GitHub review system and status for the labels inherited from Trac.

In my code I mostly used state for both cases, except in the log messages. All comments the bot posts use status. Personally, I would prefer a distinguished consistency as described above. If you don't like that, I would adopt the GitHub convention as Trac will disappear from our minds over time.

I am not sure if the message "dismissed the stale review because @kwankyu requested changes" is useful.

I agree. But unfortunately it is unavoidable when stale reviews are dismissed. The only thing I can change (but not omit) is the text in the box ("because @kwankyu requested changes").

Then please make the message a complete sentence instead of starting with "because ...".

I would prefer different messages because then it becomes clear where they are coming from.

OK.

My observation is that GitHub consistently uses the term state (but consistency is not GitHub's strength). In Trac we were used to the term status (which sounds rather German to me).

Sounds Latin to me :-)

Therefore, one way to maintain consistency would be to use state for the GitHub review system and status for the labels inherited from Trac.

I like this too. This would be most comfortable to the most people.

Then please make the message a complete sentence instead of starting with "because ...".

Done.

Therefore, one way to maintain consistency would be to use state for the GitHub review system and status for the labels inherited from Trac.

I like this too. This would be most comfortable to the most people.

Now, code and its output use the terms in this sense.

Suggestion

Label Sync Hint: You don't need to remove status labels any more. You'd better just add the label which replaces it

--->

You don't need to remove status labels any more. You'd better just add the label which replaces it.

Note the period at the end.

Otherwise I am happy with it.

Suggestion

Label Sync Hint: You don't need to remove status labels any more. You'd better just add the label which replaces it

--->

You don't need to remove status labels any more. You'd better just add the label which replaces it.

Note the period at the end.

Done!