I was thinking it would be better to update guidelines first as it gives a little bit of heads up.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
