Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > Regards > JB > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, 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 > >> >
