Thanks Ahmet for bringing this subject. +1 to close the stale PRs automatically after a fixed time of inactivity. 90 days is ok, but maybe a shorter period is better. If we consider that being stale is just not having any activity i.e., the author of the PR does not answer any message. The author can buy extra time just by adding a message to say, 'wait I am still working on this', and win a complete period of time, so the longer the staleness period is the longer it can eventually be extended.
I agree with Thomas the JIRAs should still stay open but should become unassigned because the issue won't be yet fixed but we want to encourage people to work on it. Other additional subject that makes sense to discuss here is if we need policies to avoid 'stale' JIRAs (JIRAs that have been taken but that don't have progress)?, for example: - Prevent contributors/committers from taking more than 'n' JIRAs at the same time (we should define this n considering the period of staleness, maybe 10?). - Automatically free 'stale' JIRAs after a fixed time period with no active work Remember the objective is to encourage more people to contribute but people won't be encouraged to contribute on subjects that other people have taken, this is a well known anti-pattern in volunteer communities, see http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > JIRAs should only be closed if the issue that they track is no longer > relevant (either via being fixed or being determined to not be a problem). > If a JIRA isn't being meaningfully worked on, it should be unassigned (in > all cases, not just if there's an associated pull request that has not been > worked on). > > +1 on closing PRs with no action from the original author after some > reasonable time frame (90 days is certainly reasonable; 30 might be too > short) if the author has not responded to actionable feedback. > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > >> Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, saying "Closing >> due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would >> suggest >> > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it >> in >> > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects >> > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. >> > >> > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out >> of >> > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" >> message. >> > Is there another way to do this? >> > >> > Ahmet >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
