2 months would work.
> On 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
>> <mailto: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
