Thanks for bringing up this discussion again. +1 for a bot solution.
However, we should discuss a good process for closing PRs.
In many cases, PRs are closed not because the contributor did not
respond but because no committer prioritizes the PR high enough. Or the
PR has issues that might not have been communicated clear enough (e.g.
bad code quality, big contribution that requires a big amount of time by
a reviewer).
So maybe we can first introduce labels for better communication. Right
now, we don't use the label feature at all.
For example, we could add a "Ownership needed" label by default. Because
why should a PR be closed if not a single committer opened at least the
description?
Regards,
Timo
Am 11.01.19 um 12:36 schrieb qi luo:
+1 for the stable bot, as it will help bring valuable PR out to be reviewed.
On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> wrote:
+1 I'm in favor of the Stale bot.
We use the Stalebot at Apache Airflow as well, and it really helps smoothen
the reviewing process. Keep in mind that the number of PR's processed by
the Stalebot is limited at each run. So you won't get a gazillion
notifications, but just a few every couple of days. Just enough to prune
the list of PR's.
Most of the really old PR's are not relevant anymore, so its good practice
to close these. If the person who still thinks it is relevant, the PR will
be revisited and can still be considered merging. Otherwise, the PR will be
closed by the bot. There is no value in having the old PR's hanging around.
Having 500 open PR's doesn't look really good at the project in my opinion.
My suggestion would be to give it a try.
Cheers, Fokko
Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 12:45 schreef Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>:
The bot will remind both reviewers and contributors that they have to
be active on a PR, I found that useful on some PRs that I had open at Beam
I don't think we really want every contributor bumping their PR
regularly. This will create unbearable noise and, if they actually
update it, will lead to them wasting a lot of time since we won't
suddenly start reviewing it.
On 10.01.2019 12:06, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
For reference, this is the older staleness discussion:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d53bee8431776f38ebaf8f5678b1ffd9513cd65ce15d821bbdca95aa@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E
<
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d53bee8431776f38ebaf8f5678b1ffd9513cd65ce15d821bbdca95aa@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E
My main arguments for automatic closing of PRs are:
- This will eventually close out old, stale PRs, making the number we
see in Github better reflect the actual state
- The bot will remind both reviewers and contributors that they have
to be active on a PR, I found that useful on some PRs that I had open at
Beam
Aljoscha
On 10. Jan 2019, at 11:21, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
Without any new argument for doing so, I'm still against it.
On 10.01.2019 09:54, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
Hi,
I know we had similar discussions in the past but I’d like to bring up
this topic again.
What do you think about adding a stale bot (
https://probot.github.io/apps/stale/ <https://probot.github.io/apps/stale/>)
to our Github Repo? This would automatically nag about stale PRs and close
them after a (configurable) time of inactivity. This would do two things:
(1) Clean up old PRs that truly are outdated and stale
(2) Remind both contributor and reviewers about PRs that are still
good and are on the verge of getting stale, thus potentially speeding up
review or facilitating it in the first place
Best,
Aljoscha
