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
> >>
>

Reply via email to