I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time side; so I am 0+ on either.
Thks, Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as > new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous > closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People > will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go > through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also > I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, > two could work. > > > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > >> > >> > > > >
