Hi, I am okay with closing inactive PR but timeline should be more than a month. I have been in situations where for some reason or other the PR was pending for 2-3 months, sometimes reason was simple as relevant committer didn't have time to review that time. I will vote for 3 months.
-Priyanka On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > 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. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
