If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer
can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to
optimize process for good community members (those who follow
contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com
<mailto:pra...@datatorrent.com>>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
+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
Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
will be forgotten and not addressed.
Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back
later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to
finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper
process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking
on the committers part.
