Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

anage who can merge prs is to gate the >> pr process using git actions, so that if an approved approver indicates a >> pr is good then the raiser can merge – this would give us granularity on >> write access – PyTorch follows this sort of process. >> >> kind regards,

Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

is good then the raiser can merge – this would give us granularity on > write access – PyTorch follows this sort of process. > > kind regards, David. > > > From: Martijn Visser > Date: Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:32 > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERN

RE: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

@flink.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs Hi everyone, I'm overall +1 on Ryan's comment. When we're talking about component ownership, I've started a discussion on the Infra mailing list in the beginning of the year on it. In principle, the "codeowners" idea go

Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

the subset of prs to review / merge. > > Kind regards, David. > > > From: Ryan Skraba > Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 15:09 > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs > Hey, this has been an interesting

RE: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

– I would think that component ownership helps scope the subset of prs to review / merge. Kind regards, David. From: Ryan Skraba Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 15:09 To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs Hey, this has been

Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

n work, and not blanket close all stale prs, > Kind regards, David. > > From: David Radley > Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 10:59 > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs > Hi , > I agree Venkata this issue is bigger than closi

FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

would be a pool of issues that new contributors to choose from I am happy to help to improve – once we have consensus, Kind regards, David. From: Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 00:36 To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs

issues that new contributors to choose from I am happy to help to improve – once we have consensus, Kind regards, David. From: Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 00:36 To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs Gentle ping to s

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Gentle ping to surface this up for more discussions. Regards Venkata krishnan On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:59 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Agree with your point that closing a PR without any review feedback even > after 'X' days is discouraging to a new contributor. I

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Hi Martijn, Agree with your point that closing a PR without any review feedback even after 'X' days is discouraging to a new contributor. I understand that this is a capacity problem. Capacity problem cannot be solved by this proposal and it is beyond the scope of this proposal. Regarding your

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Hi all, I really believe that the problem of the number of open PRs is just that there aren't enough reviewers/resources available to review them. > Stale PRs can clutter the repository, and closing them helps keep it > organized and ensures that only relevant and up-to-date PRs are present.

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Thanks for your response, Martijn. > What's the added value of closing these PRs It mainly helps the project maintainers/reviewers to focus on only the actively updated trimmed list of PRs that are ready for review. It helps Flink users who are waiting on a PR that enhances an existing feature

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Hi Venkata and Martijn, Stale PRs can clutter the repository, and closing them helps keep it organized and ensures that only relevant and up-to-date PRs are present. An open PR should imply that work is ongoing or needs review. On the other hand, a PR that reaches a stale state rather means the

Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs

Hi Venkata, Thanks for opening the discussion, I've been thinking about it quite a bit but I'm not sure what's the right approach. >From your proposal, the question would be "What's the added value of closing these PRs"? I don't see an immediate value of that: it would just close PRs where

Close orphaned/stale PRs

Hi Flink devs, There are currently over 1,000 open pull requests (PRs) in the Apache Flink repository, with only 162 having been updated in the last two months