Automatically file archive issue

[mgorny]

Add a reason field that can be used to file the archiving issue on the feedstock automatically.

Fixes #1324

[mgorny]

This is the first approximation. I've inlined GitHub API since the script already did that, and the relevant endpoints are trivial to use.

[mgorny]

I've added this step to make it clear that the workflow has changed. I'm wondering if we perhaps shouldn't an "or" here, also noting that people can link an existing issue instead.

[mgorny]

Bug #1324 mentioned cross-linking to the PR. If we wanted to do this, I think our best guess is parsing the merge commit (if any) for PR reference, though I think it's a bit gross, so let me know if you want that.

[mgorny]

Gentle ping. (@jakirkham perhaps?)

[h-vetinari]

What I'd almost consider more important than having a skeleton issue is to have a note in the README that adds language saying "this has been archived, if you need it, open a PR to unarchive on https://github.com/conda-forge/admin-requests"; in an ideal world, the README text would also refer to the admin-requests PR that triggered the archival (where people could then leave references to further feedstock issues if they exist).

[mgorny]

What I'd almost consider more important than having a skeleton issue is to have a note in the README that adds language saying "this has been archived, if you need it, open a PR to unarchive on https://github.com/conda-forge/admin-requests"; in an ideal world, the README text would also refer to the admin-requests PR that triggered the archival (where people could then leave references to further feedstock issues if they exist).

As in committing straight to the feedstock repository? And then removing that line when unarchiving the feedstock, or just assuming the next rerender will take care of that?

[h-vetinari]

As in committing straight to the feedstock repository?

Yes.

And then removing that line when unarchiving the feedstock, or just assuming the next rerender will take care of that?

I think it'd be fine to let a rerender take care of it. Could be part of the text in the README, à la:

This feedstock has been archived (see associated request and discussion/references therein). If this feedstock needs to be unarchived, please file an appropriate PR to https://github.com/conda-forge/admin-requests (with an explanation why un-archival is desirable). Then open a PR to this feedstock that updates the feedstock as necessary; don't forget to rerender the feedstock (either using the appropriate bot command in the PR, or by hand in your local checkout), which will also remove this blurb.

[jaimergp]

What about leaving the README alone and instead editing the repository description in the sidebar pointing to the issue?

[h-vetinari]

What about leaving the README alone and instead editing the repository description in the sidebar pointing to the issue?

Completely fine by me as an approach!