Sorry sent from a different email.. On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Lakshmi Velineni <laks...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >
