Yea, I think we will need a policy like this eventually, or face unbounded old PRs. I would be OK with closing after 60 or 30 days of silence, too, since all that is needed is a reply, plus they can always re-open. What have other projects done?
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > The proposal makes sense. > > If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out of > sync with current repo. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could we > come > > up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open PRs > > have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the number > > will be higher. > > > > For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > original > > author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. [1], > > [2] are such PRs.) > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thank you, > > Ahmet > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > >
