Hey! Big +1
I think this is a great initiative and we should follow the path laid down by other projects. Starting with X=1 year and Y=3 months is very forgiving, I personally wouldn't mind immediately going more aggressive to clean up the backlog. So for me X = 6m Y = 3m is also perfectly fine. Cheers, Gyula On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:06 PM Jim Hughes <jhug...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I like the idea of starting with X=1 year and Y=3 months. That plus having > CHI review recent PRs would be helpful. > > Your suggestion of having a bot which "lints" naming conventions could be > useful. Maybe there could be a CHI-bot to automate what you and others are > doing manually. :) > I would not suggest that this bot close PRs, but rather it could suggest > how to improve them. Or if CI is green and other conditions are met, it > could apply a "ready for review" label to draw attention. > > Cheers, > > Jim > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 11:21 AM Tom Cooper <c...@tomcooper.dev> wrote: > > > TL;DR > > > > - We have over 1.2k open PRs, this is an issue as it makes new > > contributors think twice about committing and looks like a problem that > is > > too-big-to-solve for committers. > > - There have been various attempts, over the last 6 years, to enable the > > Stale PR bot/action to prompt authors to refresh old PRs and auto-close > > them if no action is taken. > > - These were rejected as some committers felt this was punishing > > contributors for the committers not reviewing/closing PRs fast enough. > > - Others felt that, rather than "sweeping the problem under the rug", > > using the Stale PR functionality would actually reveal the true scale of > > the issue. Allowing committers to see what were truly active PRs. > > - Other Apache projects such as Kafka, Beam, Spark, Airflow and many > > others have enabled the stale PR GitHub action. > > - Despite this, Kafka still has 1k open PRs. However, these PRs have all > > been updated/commented on in the last 3-4 months, so can be considered > > active. > > - For Flink, only 12% of the open PRs have been updated in the last 3 > > months and only 41% in the last year. > > - I propose we enable the Stale PR Github action to clear the backlog and > > reduce the PRs down to those that are active and relevant. > > - We can start with PRs that haven't been active in the last year and > give > > authors 3 months to refresh them. These thresholds could then be reduced > > over time, towards the norm for other Apache projects, of 3 months > > inactivity and 1 month to refresh. > > > > The Problem > > > > Currently, we have 1245 open PRs in the main upstream Flink GitHub > > repository. The oldest of which was created over seven and half years > ago. > > Many of these PRs haven't been commented on or interacted with in years. > > > > I am definitely not here to cast blame. Flink is a huge project, the > > committers are volunteers and only have so much time. Also, Flink is > > certainly not the only open source project to face this issue. However, > the > > large number of open PRs is a drag on the community, it makes new > > contributors think twice about opening PRs and I am sure it is > demoralising > > for committers to see the mountain keep growing. > > > > Dealing with this was a big part of why the [Community Health Initiative > > (CHI)]( > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Community+Health+Initiative+%28CHI%29+workgroup > ) > > working group was set up. We are [making progress]( > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=332500010 > ) > > on reviewing and triaging the top of the PR stack. However, the bottom of > > the stack is also an issue. > > > > Background > > > > It seems reasonable that a PR that is the better part of a decade old and > > hasn't been commented on in years, is probably not relevant and could be > > closed. Indeed, this very point has been brought up before, first in > [2018]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/qpxkm7s0t6qy571bh14lr26jmos6plfp) > [where]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/k11krmyr5rbclw7jhcmshp828fov3w0n) it was > > commented that: > > > > > The current situation with 350 open PRs may send a signal to > > contributors that it may actually be too much hassle to get a change > > committed in Flink. > > > > At that time, there was some [push-back]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/6qlytq81zrctbv9kbk4z30vkngxvw9o1) to the > > proposal of using the stale PR bot. Mostly around auto-closing the PRs > > being perceived as harsh, given that the issue was mostly due to lack of > > committer review. The Beam community went ahead and enabled it, but the > > discussion on the Flink side seems to have then died out. > > > > The stale PR bot was raised again in [2019]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/9gz363224zn48n03yffgsczm8gk3ohro) and > had > > a lot of support, including several examples of other Apache projects > using > > it to good effect. However, this was again [pushed back against]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/z5r5sy5j98yb8p02l243gc2qlo267d2w) as > > hiding the symptoms of the underlying problem, namely committers not > > engaging actively enough to close PRs that were no longer relevant or had > > no hope of being merged. The c[ounter argument]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/rz6vbzs16jbrs4smhqs940g3cg6godl0) to > this > > was that the PR closing bot was only one part of a solution, not the > whole > > solution and that far from hiding the problem, the stale labelling would > > highlight the scale of the issue. > > > > The Stale PR closing issue was raised further in [2022]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/2z51fxm201z1tnvm2jklmtrhox4t9olw) and > > [2023](https://lists.apache.org/thread/pml95msx21sdc539404xs9tk209sdd55) > > with similar arguments. Including from CHI's own [David Radley]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/0poktkjxhdpv15s0xgj7oksr7209w737): > > > > > We have over 1000 open prs. This is a lot of technical debt. I came > > across a 6 month old pr recently that had not been merged. > > > A second Jira issue was raised for the same problem and a second pr > > fixed the issue (identically). The first pr was still on the backlog > until > > we noticed it. > > > > What other Apache projects are doing > > > > The [Stale PR/Issue GitHub action](https://github.com/actions/stale) is > > used by many Apache projects including [Beam]( > > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/workflows/stale.yml), > > [Kafka]( > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/.github/workflows/stale.yml), > > [Spark]( > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/.github/workflows/stale.yml) > > and [Airflow]( > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/workflows/stale.yml) > > to name a few. > > > > Apache Kafka uses a 90 day (3 months) limit to define a stale PR and then > > allows a further 30 days (1 month) for the author to refresh the PR > before > > it is auto-closed. Even with the Stale PR action enabled, Kafka still has > > over 1000 open PRs. However, all of these PRs were updated, commented on > or > > otherwise interacted with in the last 3-4 months. This gives a much > better > > overview of the scale of the open PR base. > > > > For comparison, I did some [basic analysis]( > > https://gist.github.com/tomncooper/d92985065e948fb8fc6284a5438ff195) of > > Flink's open PRs. 55% were updated in the last 2 years, 41% in the last > > year, 12% in the last 3 months and only 8% in the last month. It is > > reasonable to conclude that over half these PRs are probably not relevant > > anymore or need significant updates to be compatible. > > > > What should we do? > > > > My personal take on this is that, while I agree that the issue is mostly > > one of committer capacity to review these PRs, the upstream PR count is > > currently too high. It is discouraging engagement. But, it is also not > fair > > to blame committers for not wanting to spend time on PRs that are years > out > > of date and clearly not relevant anymore. > > > > So I think we should declare PR bankruptcy and attempt to clear away the > > bulk of the old PRs. I don't use the word "bankruptcy" flippantly or to > > provoke, just to acknowledge that the scale of the issue has gotten too > > large to be dealt with through the hard work of committers alone. Once we > > get the PR backlog to a manageable size, we can then focus on using > > initiatives like CHI and other other workflow improvements to keep the PR > > count low. > > > > Proposal > > > > Enable the [stale PR GitHub action](https://github.com/actions/stale). > > This action would: > > > > - Identify any PR that has not been interacted with in the last `X` > months > > as `Stale`: > > > > - Apply a `Stale` label to the PR > > - Comment on the PR that it is considered `Stale` and what to do to > > refresh it and how to engage further with the community. This will also > > allow committers to easily get a list of stale PRs to review and > > refresh/close. > > - Identify any `Stale` PR that hasn't been refreshed (commented on or > > otherwise updated) after a further `Y` months as closeable. > > > > - Close the PR. > > - Leave a closing comment highlighting that it can be reopened at any > > point with pointers to how to engage the community. > > > > The values of the stale (`X`) and close (`Y`) thresholds is up for > > discussion. At least initially, given the shear number of old PRs, we may > > want to be more lenient. For example X = 1 year, Y = 3 months, would > limit > > the initial number of stale PRs and allow committers more time to review > > the stale PR list. Once the PR list has been reduced sufficiently we may > > want to reduce these values in increments until, for example, X = 3 > months > > and Y = 1 month which seems to be the values other Apache projects have > > settled on. > > > > Obviously, I am a relative newcomer to the community. I would really like > > to hear what others, especially committers, think of the above proposal > and > > hear any other ideas people have for taming the PR count. > > > > Alternatives > > > > Looking through the history of discussion on the subject, on several > > occasions people have suggested doing more fine grained checks before > > closing PRs, [such as]( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/j8s4khdm4wdhvr2px6qkq0f0kwlpc2vg): > > > > > closing up PRs after X days which: > > > a) Don't have a CI that has passed > > > b) Don't follow the code contribution guide (like commit naming > > conventions) > > > c) Have changes requested but aren't being followed-up by the > contributor > > > > This is of course an option, but would probably require updating > FlinkBot. > > There is no reason we couldn't enable both the Stale PR GitHub Action and > > update Flinkbot to enforce rules like those above. > > > > Tom Cooper > > [@tomncooper](https://twitter.com/tomncooper) | [tomcooper.dev]( > > https://tomcooper.dev/) >
