Personally, my workflow is driven entirely by notifications so I don't even notice stale PRs. That being said, making a PR a draft sounds pretty harmless.
Slightly unrelated, but now that we have the "awaiting review" label, would it be possible to write a comment on PRs that have been waiting for review for a certain period of time? This would pop it back up into the notification queue. On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:38 AM Alessandro Molina <alessan...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > I think that marking them drafts could be a good way to reduce the overload > for people having to review PRs, > drafts can easily be filtered out in github searches. > > > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not > > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an > > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very > > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. > > Well, I think 30 days would be since the last update to the PR, not 30 days > since it was opened. > My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days > without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it > and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it > merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not important? > > Anyway 30 days was just a random value, it could be 60 or anything else. We > had PRs that have been open without any comment or update for 120+ days. > > I like Will's proposal of sending one ping to the author and reviewers, and > if there is no feedback after 30 days from the ping we can just close the > PR. > I would even make the ping shorter, 10 days without any update to a PR is > already a time long enough to signal the person might have forgotten about > it and a ping might bring it up on top of his mind again. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 5:23 PM Aldrin <akmon...@ucsc.edu.invalid> wrote: > > > I have some PRs that have been open for awhile and I changed them to be > > draft PRs (I think that makes them clutter fewer views while I leave them > > open). > > > > I'm just curious if draft PRs are as low cost (low cognitive load) as I > > think they > > are and if instead of closing them the bot can make a PR a draft PR? In > > general > > I agree with the general direction of the discussion otherwise. > > > > Aldrin Montana > > Computer Science PhD Student > > UC Santa Cruz > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:49 AM Will Jones <will.jones...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it > was > > > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like > > > > "feel free to reopen". > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up, Joris. That does make closing via bot much > > > less appealing to me. > > > > > > I like your idea of (1) having the bot provide a friendly message > asking > > > the contributor whether they plan to continue their work (and maybe > > provide > > > suggestions on how to get reviewer attention if needed) and (2) if > there > > is > > > no response to that message after 30 days, we can then close the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:57 AM Joris Van den Bossche < > > > jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not > > > > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an > > > > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very > > > > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know > > > > we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not > > > > (yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment > it > > > > will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might > > > > still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is > difficult > > > > to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be > > > > careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly. > > > > > > > > Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be > > > > a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can > > > > act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and > > > > can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on > it > > > > (and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened > > > > (no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of > > > > time). > > > > > > > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it > was > > > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like > > > > "feel free to reopen". > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <will.jones...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author > hasn't > > > > > updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do > > anyways, > > > so > > > > > it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so > > it's > > > > > guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with > > > > reviewers. > > > > > > > > > > With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied > > > > sufficient > > > > > tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their > review > > > > > process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes > > me > > > > to a > > > > > filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that > are > > > > ready > > > > > for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view > of > > > the > > > > > project that they regularly check. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <anja.kef...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Using those labels is a clever idea! > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have > > been > > > > > > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones < > will.jones...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that > > have > > > > been > > > > > > in > > > > > > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido < > > > > raulcumpl...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", > > > > "awaiting > > > > > > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change > > > review" > > > > to > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones < > > will.jones...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, > > not > > > > for > > > > > > > Rust > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific > > > which > > > > > > > > > subprojects you are addressing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window > > for > > > > this > > > > > > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had > not > > > > updated > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had > > an > > > > update > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't > seem > > as > > > > > > ideal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja < > anja.kef...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated > process. A > > > > > > "reminder > > > > > > > > > ping" > > > > > > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja < > anja.kef...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that > > haven't > > > > been > > > > > > > > updated > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically > > > > close any > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act > as > > a > > > > > > > > notification > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work > still > > > has > > > > > > > value, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a > > > > > > > straightforward > > > > > > > > > > merge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce > > > > maintenance > > > > > > > > burden, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a > > > policy, > > > > and > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > feels > > > > > > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
