+1 for automatic closing. The bot can add a comment to the PR with the reminder that the PR can be revived by the contributor anytime.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Henning Rohde <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Agree with Robert's sentiment. For timing, I'd suggest a warning after 3 > months and closure a month later (a week seems a little tight if it > triggers during vacation/holidays). > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> In terms of being empathetic, it might actually be an advantage for an >> action like close to be done automatically rather than feeling like a >> human >> picked out your PR as being not worth being left open. >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Pilloud <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I >> rarely contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull >> requests if they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be >> already covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor >> guide. Seems like you should just make it happen. >> >> > Andrew >> >> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first. >> >> >> Kenn >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >> >> >>> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing >> >>> the PR ? >> >> >>> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after >> the >> >>> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can >> >>> always open a new one later if it makes sense). >> >> >>> Regards >> >>> JB >> >> >>> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >>> > Hi all, >> >>> > >> >>> > Spotted this thread on [email protected] >> >>> > <mailto:[email protected]>. I didn't make a combined thread >> because >> >>> > each project should discuss on our own. >> >>> > >> >>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" >> infrastructure >> >>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / >> combine >> >>> > with merge-bot / etc). >> >>> > >> >>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully >> for >> >>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. >> >>> > >> >>> > Kenn >> >>> > >> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> >>> > From: Ufuk Celebi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM >> >>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests >> >>> > To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > 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 >> >>> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually >> >>> > loose traction >> >>> > >> >>> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox >> >>> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a >> >>> > separate thread. >> >>> > >> >>> > – Ufuk >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski >> >>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> > > 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 else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about >> it. >> >>> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the >> comments. >> >>> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it >> >>> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to >> >>> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still >> valid >> >>> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have >> to >> >>> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead >> >>> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be >> >>> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like: >> >>> > > >> >>> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of >> >>> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity >> occurs. >> >>> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a >> review, >> >>> > please simply write any comment.” >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually >> >>> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list >> inactive >> >>> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we >> >>> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that >> do >> >>> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale >> >>> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need >> to >> be >> >>> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add >> labels >> >>> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub). >> >>> > > >> >>> > > What do you think about it? >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Piotrek >> >
