strong +1 The bot solution will make it easier to identify relevant PRs that need attention and clean up the somewhat depressing number of now stale PRs that are still open.
To the point about noise being caused by contributors bumping their PRs. I believe we want that noise, since those are the PRs that are "active" and need attention. I think the onus is on the committers and PMC to find out how contributions from the community can be processed in a timely manner. Thomas On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jamie Grier <jgr...@lyft.com.invalid> wrote: > +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 > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
