Hi Nikolay, With a bot it will be complicated to determine what to do when the PR author is waiting for a reviewer. If a person goes over them, can check if they are waiting for reviews and tag the PR accordingly and maybe ping a maintainer. If you look at my last email I described a flow (but AFAIU it will work only if a human executes it) where the situation you point out would be covered.
——— Josep Prat Aiven Deutschland GmbH Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen m: +491715557497 w: aiven.io e: josep.p...@aiven.io On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 11:20 Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello. > > What is actions of contributor if no feedback given? [1], [2] > > [1] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13278 > [2] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13247 > > > 2 июня 2023 г., в 23:38, David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > > > I think this is a great idea. If we don’t want the auto-close > > functionality, we can set it to -1 > > > > I realize this isn’t a vote, but I’m +1 on this > > > > -David > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 15:34 Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> That should read "30 days without activity" > >> > >> (I am assuming we have the ability to determine when a PR was last > updated > >> on GH) > >> > >> best, > >> Colin > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, at 12:32, Colin McCabe wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Looking at GitHub, I have a bunch of Kafka PRs of my own that I've > >>> allowed to become stale, and I guess are pushing up these numbers! > >>> Overall I support the goal of putting a time limit on PRs, just so that > >>> we can focus our review bandwidth. > >>> > >>> It may be best to start with a simple approach where we mark PRs as > >>> stale after 30 days and email the submitter at that time. And then > >>> delete after 60 days. (Of course the exact time periods might be > >>> something gother than 30/60 but this is just an initial suggestion) > >>> > >>> best, > >>> Colin > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, at 00:37, Josep Prat wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I want to say that in my experience, I always felt better as a > >> contributor > >>>> when a person told me something than when a bot did. That being said, > >> I'm > >>>> not against bots, and I think they might be a great solution once we > >> have a > >>>> manageable number of open PRs. > >>>> > >>>> Another great question that adding a bot poses is types of staleness > >>>> detection. How do we distinguish between staleness from the author's > >> side > >>>> or from the lack of reviewers/maintainers' side? That's why I started > >> with > >>>> a human approach to be able to distinguish between these 2 cases. Both > >>>> situations should have different messages and actually different > >> intended > >>>> receivers. In case of staleness because of author inactivity, the > >> message > >>>> should encourage the author to update the PR with the requested > changes > >> or > >>>> resolve the conflicts. But In many cases, PRs are stale because of > lack > >> of > >>>> reviewers. This would need a different message, targeting maintainers. > >>>> > >>>> Ideally (with bot or not) I believe the process should be as follows: > >>>> - Check PRs that are stale. > >>>> - See if they have labels, if not add proper labels (connect, core, > >>>> clients...) > >>>> - PR has merge conflicts > >>>> -- Merge conflicts exist and target files that still exist, ping the > >> author > >>>> asking for conflict resolution and add some additional label like > >> `stale`. > >>>> -- Merge conflicts exist and target files that do not exist anymore, > let > >>>> the author know that this PR is obsolete, label the PR as 'obsolete' > and > >>>> close the PR. > >>>> - PR is mergeable, check whose action is needed (author or reviewers) > >>>> -- Author: let the author know that there are pending comments to > >> address. > >>>> Add some additional label, maybe `stale` again > >>>> -- Reviewer: ping some reviewers that have experience or lately > touched > >>>> this piece of the codebase, add a label `reviewer needed` or something > >>>> similar > >>>> - PRs that have `stale` label after X days, will be closed. > >>>> > >>>> Regarding the comments about only committers and collaborators being > >> able > >>>> to label PRs, this is true, not everyone can do this. However, this > >> could > >>>> be a great opportunity for the newly appointed contributors to > exercise > >>>> their new permissions :) > >>>> > >>>> Let me know if it makes sense to you all. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >> > > -- > > David Arthur > >
