Hi Pramod,
Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why
it is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR
I asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If
there are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni 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.
