bq. IRAs should still stay open but should become unassigned The above would need admin privilege, right ? Is there automated way to do it ?
bq. Prevent contributors/committers from taking more than 'n' JIRAs at the same time It would be hard to determine the N above since the amount of coding / testing varies greatly across JIRAs. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
