Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it
in a timely manner
2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are
inactive for 2 month?
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
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.
