For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that sat inactive for more than 30 days due to committers not having time to look at them, but did eventually end up successfully being merged.
I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping and reopening the PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses the underlying issue. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469 today. While we can > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these are old and still open > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original authors have become > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because the committers are not > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have not rejected the patch > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise ratio by closing pull > requests that have been inactive for greater than 30 days, with a nice > message. I just checked and this would close ~ half of the pull requests. > > For example: > > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since this pull request has been > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing it. Closing the pull > request does not remove it from history and will retain all the diff and > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and would like to continue > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks again!" > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
