Julian, Overall, I agree with you Julian and Francis. Ideally, we would find the resources among committers to review all PRs. My +1 for the bot mainly came from a desire to keep the list of open PRs as ones which are actively being worked on. Perhaps many of the same goals would be accomplished by a one-time cleanup of existing abandoned PRs.
I think having the PRs on GitHub better managed would go a long way to encouraging people to review them. For example, if you're reviewing a PR with the intent of eventually merging, assign it to yourself. If any committer could easily find a list of recent, unassigned PRs, it would make reviewing much easier. -- Michael Mior mm...@apache.org Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 14:19, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> a écrit : > > -1 Using a robot to close stale PRs is solving the wrong problem. > > The main reason that we have a lot of open PRs is that we - as a community of > committers - are not putting sufficient time into reviewing. I think that we > are giving PR submitters poor service, and they are being very patient with > us. > > Every PR is a potential new community member, and not one but many > improvements to Calcite. Our goal, as committers, should be to ensure that we > don’t let any of those opportunities slip. > > We all know that there are a few poor quality PRs. They take more effort to > review, and bang into shape, than it would have taken the reviewer to write > it themselves. Comments are misspelled, and the code just looks sloppy. > Those, frankly, are not very high priority. > > But at the other end of the spectrum, there are some - many - high quality > PRs, where the contributor has done their homework. They are rarely perfect > on the first submission, but you can see that the person behind it would make > the community much stronger. Those PRs deserve our immediate attention. > > And I’ll say this just once. I get frustrated when committers prioritize PRs > from employees of their own company, and I get furious when they hold those > PRs to a lower standard than other PRs. As a committer, you need to wear your > Apache hat, and only your Apache hat, when reviewing code. > > Julian > > > > > > On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Thanks Kevin! That's an important task and one that few people are > > willing to take on :) > > > > And thanks Hongze for the pointer to Stale. Especially since other > > Apache project are already using it, I'd be inclined to have a > > discussion on the appropriate configuration and give it a go. > > Personally, I think the list of open PRs should things that are > > actively being worked on. Closed PRs can always be reopened anyway, so > > I don't think we're losing anything. > > > > -- > > Michael Mior > > mm...@apache.org > > > > Le mer. 27 févr. 2019 à 14:36, Kevin Risden <kris...@apache.org> a écrit : > >> > >> There are 105 open pull requests against apache/calcite repo [1]. There are > >> only 48 Calcite JIRAs labeled with pull-request-available [2]. > >> > >> I'm planning to go through in the next few days and make sure that we have > >> PRs that match open JIRAs and are labeled pull-request-available. If there > >> are PRs that are open for JIRAs that are closed, planning to close those > >> PRs with a comment. > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/calcite/pulls > >> [2] > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CALCITE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20pull-request-available%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > >> > >> Kevin Risden >
