+1 to try the bot solution and see how it goes. On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:54 AM jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the bot solution！ > and I think Timo‘s suggestion is very useful！ > Thanks， > Jincheng > > > Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>于2019年1月11日 周五22:44写道： > > > 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 > > >>> > > > > >
