Hi Rui,
Good point about recording the proposal. I am not sure it fits the FLIP process so I made a page [1] under the CHI workgroup. That page has a summary of the proposal and links to the discussion and vote threads. Thanks, Tom Cooper @tomncooper | tomcooper.dev [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Stale+PR+Cleanup On Tuesday, 7 January 2025 at 06:13, Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Tom for driving this discussion! > > It sounds make sense to me, could you help create a FLIP or doc > to record it? It's helpful to let other developers check the stale strategy > and background in the future, thank you. > > Best, > Rui > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:16 PM Matthias Pohl map...@apache.org wrote: > > > +1 for adding the automation considering that other projects are doing this > > as well and the high amount of open PRs doesn't help. Thanks for > > summarizing the current state in such detail. > > > > X + Y should probably be larger than our usual release cycles. X=6m and > > Y=3m might be alright in this regard. > > > > Matthias > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:40 PM Gyula Fóra gyula.f...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > 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+(CHI)+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 > > > > > where 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 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 > > > > > 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 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 counter argument 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 > > > > > and > > > > > 2023 > > > > > with similar arguments. Including from CHI's own David Radley: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 | tomcooper.dev
