Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
provides a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't
see why people will generally miss the old PR.
The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
(remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
be impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
the old patch they (comments) apply to?
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni 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.
