Hi Mridul, Thanks for the message. All you said made sense to me.
It can definitely be frustrating when one of your pull requests got accidentally closed, and that's why we often ping the original authors to close them. However, this doesn't always work because the original authors might be inactive for some old pull requests, and sorting these out of 400+ open pull requests can be pretty tough. Regardless of whether pull requests should be long-lived or short-lived, closing a pull request does not wipe any of its content. All the changes and their associated reviews are kept there, and it is trivial to re-open (one click of a button). I also agree with your point that the "date of open" is not the best metric to look at here. Inactivity for a certain period is a much better metric to use in the future. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the contrary, PR's are actually meant to be long lived - and a > reference of discussion about review and changes. > Particularly so for spark since JIRA's and review board are not used > for code review. > Note - they are not used only in spark, but by other organization's to > track contributions (like in our case). > > If you look at Reynold's response, he has clarified they were closed > by him and not via user request - he probably missed out on activity > on some of the PR's when closing in bulk. > I would have preferred pinging the PR contributors to close, and > subsequently doing so if inactive after "some" time (and definitely > not when folks are off on vacations). > > Regards, > Mridul > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > There's a script that can be run manually which closes PRs that have > > been 'requested' to be closed. I'm not sure of the exact words it > > looks for but "Do you mind closing this PR?" seems to work. However it > > does seem to mean that PRs will occasionally get closed as a false > > positive, so maybe that happened here. > > > > You can use your judgment about whether to reopen, but I tend to think > > PRs are not meant to be long-lived. They don't go away even when > > closed, so can always stand as a record of a proposed change or be > > reopened. But there shouldn't be such a thing as a PR open for months. > > (In practice, you can see a huge number of dead, stale PRs are left > > open by people out there anyway) > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am not sure of others, but I had a PR close from under me where > >> ongoing discussion was as late as 2 weeks back. > >> Given this, I assumed it was automated close and not manual ! > >> > >> When the change was opened is not a good metric about viability of the > >> change (particularly when it touches code which is rarely modified; > >> and so will merge after multiple releases). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Mridul > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> > wrote: > >>> No there is not. I actually manually closed them to cut down the > number of > >>> open pull requests. Feel free to reopen individual ones. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Is there a script running to close "old" PR's ? I was not aware of any > >>>> discussion about this in dev list. > >>>> > >>>> - Mridul > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >> >
