bq. component leads regularly triage their components, including unassigning issues.
+1 On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
