I had one PR which got merged after 3 months. If the inactivity was due to contributor, I think it can be closed after 30 days. But if the inactivity was due to lack of review, the PR should be kept open.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that sat inactive for > more than 30 days due to committers not having time to look at them, > but did eventually end up successfully being merged. > > I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping and reopening the > PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses the underlying > issue. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469 today. While we can > > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these are old and still open > > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original authors have > become > > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because the committers are > not > > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have not rejected the patch > > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise ratio by closing pull > > requests that have been inactive for greater than 30 days, with a nice > > message. I just checked and this would close ~ half of the pull requests. > > > > For example: > > > > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since this pull request has > been > > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing it. Closing the pull > > request does not remove it from history and will retain all the diff and > > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and would like to continue > > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks again!" > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
