Vlad, I am +1. Do proceed. I am not sure what the process is, i.e wait a day or so to get folks to give final opinion, or just proceed. Either way, your call.
Thks Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > >
