> Op 27 juli 2017 om 22:15 schreef Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>: > > > That's a good idea to use labels to tag PRs. Does it make sense to add an > explicit label such as 'closeable' or something more appropriate on PRs that > are not getting any traction either from reviewers or from the author > themselves? >
Yes, that seems like a good idea. I've created the label 'closable' and already labeled a few which were really not seeing attention. Added this message: "This Pull Requests just got the label 'closable' for not seeing any activity for a long period. The CloudStack project is in a transition from the Apache Foundation's Git infrastructure to Github. This has created a very large backlog of PRs. A lot of them don't merge anymore and didn't get attention. To filter these PRs we are adding the tag closable to them to make a distinction between PRs which need our attention and which are a candidate to be closed. It's not our intention to say that we don't value the PR, but it's a way to get a overview of which PRs need our resources and attention. If you think closing this PR is a mistake, please add a comment and let us know! 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!" Wido > > For the 4.9.3.0 effort, I'm trying to go through several PRs and have closed > few PRs that are not relevant anymore (for example, duplicates, or fixed in a > different way in master, or already fixed in master, or not applicable at all > etc). > > > - Rohit > > ________________________________ > From: Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:47:39 PM > To: Syed Ahmed; dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Marc-Aurèle Brothier > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Closing old Pull Requests on Github > > > > 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 > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >
