Having a PR closed, especially if due to committers not having hte bandwidth to check on things, will be very discouraging to new folks. Doubly so for those inexperienced with opensource. Even if the message says "feel free to reopen for so-and-so reason", new folks who lack confidence are going to see reopening as "pestering" and busy folks are going to see it as a clear indication that their work is not even valuable enough for a human to give a reason for closing. In either case, the cost of reopening is substantially higher than that button press.
How about we start by keeping a report of "at-risk" PRs that have been stale for 30 days to make it easier for committers to look at the prs that have been long inactive? On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > The cost of "reopen" is close to zero, because it is just clicking a button. > I think you were referring to the cost of closing the pull request, and you > are assuming people look at the pull requests that have been inactive for a > long time. That seems equally likely (or unlikely) as committers looking at > the recently closed pull requests. > > In either case, most pull requests are scanned through by us when they are > first open, and if they are important enough, usually they get merged > quickly or a target version is set in JIRA. We can definitely improve that > by making it more explicit. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> From committers' perspective, would they look at closed PRs ? >> >> If not, the cost is not close to zero. >> Meaning, some potentially useful PRs would never see the light of day. >> >> My two cents. >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >>> >>> Part of it is how difficult it is to automate this. We can build a >>> perfect engine with a lot of rules that understand everything. But the more >>> complicated rules we need, the more unlikely for any of these to happen. So >>> I'd rather do this and create a nice enough message to tell contributors >>> sometimes mistake happen but the cost to reopen is approximately zero (i.e. >>> click a button on the pull request). >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> bq. close the ones where they don't respond for a week >>>> >>>> Does this imply that the script understands response from human ? >>>> >>>> Meaning, would the script use some regex which signifies that the >>>> contributor is willing to close the PR ? >>>> >>>> If the contributor is willing to close, why wouldn't he / she do it >>>> him/herself ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs open, but I >>>>> understand wanting to keep the open PRs limited to ones which have a >>>>> reasonable chance of being merged. >>>>> >>>>> What about if we filtered for non-mergeable PRs or instead left a >>>>> comment asking the author to respond if they are still available to move >>>>> the >>>>> PR forward - and close the ones where they don't respond for a week? >>>>> >>>>> Just a suggestion. >>>>> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I had one PR which got merged after 3 months. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the inactivity was due to contributor, I think it can be closed >>>>>> after 30 days. >>>>>> But if the inactivity was due to lack of review, the PR should be kept >>>>>> open. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cell : 425-233-8271 >>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- busbey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
