Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

The question is what would such tool offer on top of over a Github’s view of PR sorted by “least recently updated”: https://github.com/apache/flink/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc ? Maybe it would be good

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Hi, I'm not objecting closing stale PRs. We have quite a few PRs with very little chance of being merged and I would certainly appreciate cleaning up those. However, I think we should not automate closing PRs for the reasons I gave before. A tool that reminds us of state PRs as proposed by Till

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I have questions in this regard (you guys might have addressed it in this email chain): how PRs get assigned to a reviewer apart of a contributor tag someone? what if PR never gets a reviewer attention and it became in-active due to long review respond? should Bot assign a reviewer to a PR

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I like Till's proposal to notify the participants on the PR to PTAL. But I would also suggest to auto-close when no action is taken, with a friendly reminder that PRs can be reopened anytime. The current situation with 350 open PRs may send a signal to contributors that it may actually be too

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

How does the bot decide whether the PR is waiting for reviews or is being abandoned by contributor ? How about letting the bot count the number of times contributor pings committer(s) for review ? When unanswered ping count crosses some threshold, say 3, the bot publishes the JIRA and PR

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I'm a bit torn here because I can see the pros and cons for both sides. Maybe a compromise could be to not have a closing but a monitoring bot which notifies us about inactive PRs. This could then trigger an investigation of the underlying problem and ultimately lead to a conscious decision to

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

/So far I did it twice for older PRs. In both cases I didn’t get any response and I even forgot in which PRs I had asked this question, so now I can not even close them :S/ To be honest this sounds more like an issue with how your organize your work. No amount of closing PRs can fix that.

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I agree that we have other, even more important, problems with reviewing PR and community, but that shouldn’t block us from trying to clean up things a little bit and minimise the effort needed for reviewing PRs. Now before reviewing/picking older PRs I had to ask this “Hey, are you still

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

I'm with Chesnay on this issue. Stale PRs, i.e., a PR where a contributor becomes inactive, are one of our smallest issues, IMO. There are more reasons for the high number of PRs. * Lack of timely reviews. * Not eagerly closing PRs that have no or very little chance of being merged. Common

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

-1 For clarification (since the original mail indicates otherwise), the number of pull requests that this would affect is fairly small. Only about 25-30% of all open PRs are blocked on the contributor, the remaining ones are actually blocked on the review. Thus is reject the premise that one

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

+dev@beam / hi dev@flink / I saw this and forwarded on to dev@beam for consideration. There was general agreement that it was interesting so I thought I'd loop them together. I tried to wait until both threads had enough support that combining them wouldn't confuse things. Beam would also be

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

bq. this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. Shouldn't the wording of such comment be known before hand ? Otherwise pull request waiting for committers' review may be mis-classified. Cheers On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, blues zheng wrote: >

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

+1 for the proposal. Best, blues On 05/14/2018 20:58, Ufuk Celebi wrote: Hey Piotr, thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side. - I like the approach with a notification one week before automatically closing

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Hey Piotr, thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side. - I like the approach with a notification one week before automatically closing the PR - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are

Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Hey, We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them. Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long time ago, someone