To summarize the stale PR issue, do we agree on the following statement: A PR becomes stale after its author fails to respond to actionable comments for 60 days. The community will close stale PRs. Author is welcome to reopen the same PR again in the future. The associated JIRAs will be unassigned from the author but will stay open.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I agree with Ismaël that there is an issue here. We currently have 969 open JIRAs, 427 of them are unassigned and the remaining 542 are assigned to 87 people. The average of 6 issues per assignee is not that high. I think the problem is some of us (mainly component leads, including myself) have too many issues assigned. Top 5 of them have 218 issues assigned to them. I believe these issues are automatically assigned for triage purposes. We probably do not need to codify an exact set of rules,, we could ask component leads regularly triage their components, including unassigning issues. > > > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
