To clarify - if a committer does not have time to review we can assume
that he/she also does not have time to close. PR is considered inactive
when there are review comments that a contributor needs to address and
there is no activity.
Based on our previous discussion, I assume that contributors should
proactively reach to committers to ask them to review and merge PRs.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/24/17 21:26, Priyanka Gugale wrote:
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.
