Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

Thanks a lot for commenting. We are getting great feedback on this thread. The take-aways are: 1. In general people prefer having explicit reasons why pull requests should be closed. We should push committers to leave messages that are more explicit about why certain PR should be closed or not. I

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

bq. there should be more committers or they are asked to be more active. Bingo. bq. they can't be closed only because it is "expired" with a copy and pasted message. +1 On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > I don't think asking committers to be more

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

>>>By the way, some people noted that closing PRs may discourage contributors. I think our open PR count alone is very discouraging. Under what circumstances would you feel encouraged to open a PR against a project that has hundreds of open PRs, some from many, many months ago

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

I don't think asking committers to be more active is impractical. I am not too sure if other projects apply the same rules here but I think if a project is being more popular, then I think it is appropriate that there should be more committers or they are asked to be more active. In addition, I

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

Relevant: https://github.com/databricks/spark-pr-dashboard/issues/1 A lot of this was discussed a while back when the PR Dashboard was first introduced, and several times before and after that as well. (e.g. August 2014

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

During the months of November / December, the 30 day period should be relaxed. Some people(at least in US) may take extended vacation during that time. For Chinese developers, Spring Festival would bear similar circumstance. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Hyukjin Kwon

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

I also think this might not have to be closed only because it is inactive. How about closing issues after 30 days when a committer's comment is added at the last without responses from the author? IMHO, If the committers are not sure whether the patch would be useful, then I think they should

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

It would be better to have a specific technical reason why this PR should be closed, either the implementation is not good or the problem is not valid, or something else. That will actually help the contributor to shape their codes and reopen the PR again. Otherwise reasons like "feel free to

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

Having a PR closed, especially if due to committers not having hte bandwidth to check on things, will be very discouraging to new folks. Doubly so for those inexperienced with opensource. Even if the message says "feel free to reopen for so-and-so reason", new folks who lack confidence are going

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

The cost of "reopen" is close to zero, because it is just clicking a button. I think you were referring to the cost of closing the pull request, and you are assuming people look at the pull requests that have been inactive for a long time. That seems equally likely (or unlikely) as committers

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

>From committers' perspective, would they look at closed PRs ? If not, the cost is not close to zero. Meaning, some potentially useful PRs would never see the light of day. My two cents. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Part of it is how difficult it

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

Part of it is how difficult it is to automate this. We can build a perfect engine with a lot of rules that understand everything. But the more complicated rules we need, the more unlikely for any of these to happen. So I'd rather do this and create a nice enough message to tell contributors

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

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

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

+1 and at the same time maybe surface a report to this list of PRs which need committer action and have only had submitters responding to pings in the last 30 days? On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Holden Karau wrote: > Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

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

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

Cody, Thanks for commenting. "inactive" here means no code push nor comments. So any "ping" would actually keep the pr in the open queue. Getting auto-closed also by no means indicate the pull request can't be reopened. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger wrote:

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

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 wrote: > For what

Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

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

auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?

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