bq. close the ones where they don't respond for a week Does this imply that the script understands response from human ?
Meaning, would the script use some regex which signifies that the contributor is willing to close the PR ? If the contributor is willing to close, why wouldn't he / she do it him/herself ? On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> wrote: > Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs open, but I > understand wanting to keep the open PRs limited to ones which have a > reasonable chance of being merged. > > What about if we filtered for non-mergeable PRs or instead left a comment > asking the author to respond if they are still available to move the PR > forward - and close the ones where they don't respond for a week? > > Just a suggestion. > On Monday, April 18, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > -- > Cell : 425-233-8271 > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau > >
