> Op 27 juli 2017 om 17:13 schreef Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com>: > > > I would start by adding a comment to the open PRs to see if the author is > responsive. If that's the case, then it means that review is need and we > can add the "waiting-for-review" tag. There are a few PRs that are in that > state but there are far more out there which need to have this tag added. >
Seems like a good suggestions. A new label which we add and a message to all PRs. See if somebody responds and then take action later on? Wido > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > > > > Op 24 juli 2017 om 10:47 schreef Marc-Aurèle Brothier <ma...@exoscale.ch > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi Wido, > > > > > > I have one comment on this topic. Some of those PRs are lying there > > because > > > no one took the time to merge them (I have a couple like that) since they > > > were not very important (I think it's the reason), fixing only a small > > > glitch or improving an output. If we start to close the PRs because there > > > isn't activity on them, we should be sure to treat all PRs equally in > > term > > > on timeline when they arrive. Using the labels to sort them and make > > > filtering easier would also be something important IMO. Today there are > > > 200+ PRs but we cannot filter them and have not much idea on their > > status, > > > except by checking if they are "mergeable". This should not conflict with > > > the Jira tickets & discussion that happened previously. > > > > Understood! But that's a matter of resources the community has. Each PR > > needs to be looked at by a volunteer, a committer who all have limited > > resources. > > > > It's not good that PR's didn't get the attention they needed, but it's a > > fact that it happened. > > > > I don't think we have the resources to manually check and label 200 PRs > > and see which one can be merged. > > > > If a author thinks the PR is still valid he/she can open it again. It's > > not a hard-close as I put in the message, but a way to filter what we need > > to put attention on. > > > > They can be labeled and handled then. > > > > Wido > > > > > > > > Marco > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > While writing this e-mail we have 191 Open Pull requests [0] on Github > > and > > > > that number keeps hovering around ~200. > > > > > > > > We have a great number of PRs being merged, but a lot of code is old > > and > > > > doesn't even merge anymore. > > > > > > > > My proposal would be that we close all PRs which didn't see any > > activity > > > > in the last 3 months (Jun, July and May 2017) with the following > > message: > > > > > > > > "This Pull Request is being closed for not seeing any activity since > > May > > > > 2017. > > > > > > > > The CloudStack project is in a transition from the Apache Foundation's > > Git > > > > infrastructure to Github and due to that not all PRs we able to be > > tested > > > > and/or merged. > > > > > > > > It's not our intention to say that we don't value the PR, but it's a > > way > > > > to get a better overview of what needs to be merged. > > > > > > > > If you think closing this PR is a mistake, please add a comment and > > > > re-open the PR! If you do that, could you please make sure that the PR > > > > merges against the branch it was submitted against? > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation!" > > > > > > > > How does that sound? > > > > > > > > Wido > > > > > > > > > > > > [0]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pulls > > > > > >
