+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity (contributor guidelines)
There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a function that github provides that should be used to improve collaboration. PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs sitting as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action by the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes ready for review. Thomas On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It >>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also >>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look >>> into it. >>> >>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go >> into >> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's >> attention. >> > For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to > have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR > where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to > look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to > look into closed and not merged PRs? > >> >> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion >> with >> >>> a proper comment. >>> >> >> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done >>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after >>> 3 >>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone >>> who were involved into the review. >>> >>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but >> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can >> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a >> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems >> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it >> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does >> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the >> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if >> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log >> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link >> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed. >> > If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to > address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the > PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a > code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback. > > There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an > irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work > on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good > enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month? > > >> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move >> to >> >>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such >>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if >>> possible at all. >>> >>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go, >> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current >> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like >> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other >> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would >> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like >> 3 >> months should be fine. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Thank you, >>> >>> Vlad >>> >>> >>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote: >>> >>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute >>>> in >>>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more >>>> than >>>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months >>>> would be ideal. >>>> >>>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever >>>> they >>>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may >>>> go >>>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects >>>> that >>>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone >>>> else >>>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active >>>> on >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is >>>> >>>>> closed. Any objections? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Vlad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
