It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >
