Thanks Josh and Stefan for the comments! Such a script can definitely be helpful for this purpose of keeping our house tidy. It seems that the thread hasn’t gotten much steam yet. As this is, by no means, any urgent matter, let’s give some more time for people to pitch in. I’ll wait some more days looking for answers on this thread. Then, if no one has any strong opinion against it, I can start closing old PRs.
Thanks! Bernardo > On Apr 11, 2025, at 10:22 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I have a small script which scans GH pull requests (their titles) and looks > into JIRA to see what is their status. When it is "resolved" it prints it to > the console. Then I go over the links of PRs and close them one by one. This > relies on the title of the PR to be in exact format (CASSANDRA-123 a title of > the ticket) and not bullet proof but I have not come up with anything better > so far. > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 5:19 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org > <mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote: >> +1 from me. >> >> My intuition is that this is a logical consequence of us not using github to >> merge PR's so they don't auto-close. Which seems like it's a logical >> consequence of us using merge commits instead of per-branch commits of >> patches. >> >> The band-aid of at least having a human-in-the-loop to close out old >> inactive things is better than the status quo; the information is all still >> available in github but the status of the PR's will communicate different >> things. >> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025, at 7:14 PM, Bernardo Botella wrote: >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> First of all, this may have come out before, and I understand it is really >>> hard to keep a tidy house with so many different collaborations. But, I >>> can't help the feeling that coming to the main Apache Cassandra repository >>> and seeing more than 600 open PRs, some of them without activity for 5+ >>> years, gives the wrong impression about the love and care that we all share >>> for this code base. I think we can find an easy to follow agreement to try >>> and keep things a bit tidier. I wanted to propose some kind of "rule" that >>> allow us to directly close PRs that haven't had activity in a reasonable >>> and conservative amount of time of, let's say, 6 months? I want to >>> reiterate that I mean no activity at all for six months from the PR author. >>> I understand that complex PRs can be opened for longer than that period, >>> and that's perfectly fine. >>> >>> What do you all think? >>> >>> Bernardo >>
