Allow users to re-open issues marked stale?

[kevinushey]

Currently, if the stale bot closes an issue, a member of the repository needs to re-open the issue if required. It might be useful to allow the OP of an issue to re-open their own stale issues; e.g. with a special phrase in their commit message (!stalebot reopen).

[kevinushey]

Note: ideally I think this would happen in isaacs/github#583, but presumedly having a bot that implements this behavior would also be a way forward.

[C0ZEN]

@kevinushey basically, you wish to use the bot as a hack to this lack of implementation since it has the rights to do so?
It can be possible I think.

One thing though:

• The bot should only reopen if it was close by itself

And as you mentioned it would be better to avoid unnecessary reopening and un-closing only on specific occasion. With a message is one way to do it.
In that case, the message triggering the un-close should be part of a new option (unset means it's not possible to un-close, set means the workflow should look for it).
It gives the freedom to each consumer of this workflow to define what is the trigger.
The message to look for should be only from after the close date (to avoid issue like closed one time, re-opened then closed a second time and immediately re-opened).

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days

[C0ZEN]

up

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days

[C0ZEN]

up

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days

[C0ZEN]

up

[BillTiT]

Some issues should receive precedent over others based on overall effect on user environment

[luketomlinson]

I think this is out of scope for this action. We don't intend to make make the stale action interactive in this way.

[RokeJulianLockhart]

#345 (comment)

@luketomlinson, "not planned" - rather than "completed" - then.