That's exactly what will happen with what I'm proposing. After 30 days, a PR will be marked as stale. The author will get a notification of this. After 90 more days with no activity, the PR will be closed. -- Michael Mior mm...@apache.org
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 9:30 PM Cancai Cai <caic68...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we can issue a warning before closing it to see if the contributor > responds, if not, we can close the PR. > > Best wishes, > Cancai Cai > > > 2024年9月10日 21:50，Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> 写道： > > > > I wanted to revisit this. So far we have a +0 from Julian and Francis and > > a +1 from Ruben. Given there seems to be no strong opposition, I propose > > that we move forward. I'll acknowledge that this doesn't really fix the > > problem we have of PRs not getting reviewed, but I'm hoping that cleaning > > up the list will make it easier to prioritize the remaining PRs. > > > > I initially proposed marking PRs as stale after 30 days (X) and closing > > after 90 days (Y). That was before I compiled the list at the bottom of > my > > message. Based on what other projects have implemented, X=60 and Y=7 > seems > > to be the most common configuration. If there are no strong objections by > > the end of the week, I'll try to get this in next week. > > > > Note that other than notifications to PR authors, this is completely > > reversible since we could disable this in the future and reopen all PRs > > that were closed or marked as stale. > > > > -- > > Michael Mior > > mm...@apache.org > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:42 PM Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I know the better solution here is to have more people reviewing and > >> merging PRs to keep momentum going. However, even when someone is > engaged > >> in trying to help merge a PR, sometimes the original author will > disappear > >> or changes become irrelevant over time. I think having a smaller number > of > >> open PRs can help keep things more manageable. The goal is that > regardless > >> of when the PR was opened, it should be kept open if there is still > >> interest. But PRs which have been abandoned should be closed. > >> > >> I'm suggesting implementing (via GitHub Actions, e.g. > >> https://github.com/actions/stale) a process that will automatically > close > >> PRs after some period of inactivity. This doesn't mean we lose any of > the > >> work. We can also have PRs automatically be reopened if there are any > >> future comments. The idea would be that after X number of days, a > comment > >> is automatically posted and a label of "stale" is applied. Then after Y > >> more days, the PR would be automatically closed. Any activity (more > commits > >> on the branch or comments) will remove the stale label and reset the > clock. > >> > >> I'd propose implementing this with X=30 and Y=90. This gives four months > >> for any activity to keep a PR alive. Again, if it is closed, no work is > >> lost. But I think four months of no activity is a strong indicator that > >> nothing is likely to move forward in the near future. I will note that > if > >> this policy were already in place, it would mean ~85% of our current > open > >> PRs would have been closed (if there was no intervention after the > initial > >> ping). > >> > >> Here's some configuration data from a few projects which have > implemented > >> this > >> > >> Apache Age, X=60, Y=14 > >> Apache Airflow, X=45, Y=5 > >> Apache Beam, X=60, Y=7 > >> Apache ECharts, X=730,Y=7 > >> Apache Iceberg, X=30, Y=7 > >> Apache Kafka, X=90, Y=-1 (never automatically close) > >> Apache Solr, X=60, Y=-1 > >> Apache Spark, X=100,Y=0 > >> Apache Superset, X=60, Y=7 > >> > >> -- > >> Michael Mior > >> mm...@apache.org > >> > >> > >
