Hi Alexey, second need it to check all open PRs from community members for fixes, which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I ask everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained opened. The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide visas to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should take it into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would like to automate this process as much as possible. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com>: > The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community > members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human > events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding, spam > filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I mentioned) > > From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter > period? Bot needs? Robot needs? > Robot could wait, I hope:) > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Alexey, > > > > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do > > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long > > (3-6 months)?. > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion > > > > > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning", we > > should > > > provide next options > > > > > > - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments for > > > useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months) > > > - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with > clarification > > > of our goals > > > - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's > author > > > > > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module and > area > > > with tags "obsolete" or something else. > > > > > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and the > > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by > myself > > > above > > > > > > I hope that we will be careful with our community > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH & Apache > > > > accounts. > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/ > > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other contributor) PR > > to > > > > > apache/ignite? > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > NIkolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean technical ability? > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other contributors? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет: > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup. > > > > Additionally > > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are > slowed > > down > > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an opinion > > about > > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise criteria > > to > > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov < > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear. > > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several > reasons: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of > > bureaucracy. > > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a BAD > > thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community. > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with *YOUR > > OWN* > > > > PRs. > > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to master. > > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs. > > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I see. > > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well) consumes > > huge > > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect operations > > (every > > > > > minute, BTW). > > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of > bureaucracy, > > but > > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning up and > > > > keeping > > > > > everything fresh and actual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to review > > the > > > > > rest. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another, > let's > > > > solve > > > > > real problem: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - help the community doing PR review. > > > > > > > > > > - fixing failing tests. > > > > > > > > > > - introducing new code inspections to make our code > > base > > > > > clear. > > > > > > > > > > - making Ignite improvements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other Apache > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened. > > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened. > > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we should > > keep > > > > > them in order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets, this can > > be > > > > > done with a > > > > > > > > > > > simple script. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван < > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my > first > > > > > thought was > > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process. In my > > mind > > > > > in not very > > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well the > real > > > > work > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more > > > > complicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind? > > Immediately I > > > > > think that > > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not > touched > > > > more > > > > > than a > > > > > > > > > > > > year. > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpav...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that > newcomer > > will > > > > > have to obtain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to > > provide a > > > > > feedback to > > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA state > goes > > > > down > > > > > (84 is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state). But > > 1428 > > > > > PRs may imply we > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of incomplete > PRs. > > > > > Actually, most of > > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using > > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if there are > > any > > > > > changes which > > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket with PA > > > > status, > > > > > we will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify > > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be applied > > to the > > > > > codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. > If > > you > > > > > were involved > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > dpav...@apache.org: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became > > concerned > > > > > about many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also > > performs > > > > > runs checks with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are waiting > > for > > > > > review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your PRs in > > > > Apache > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls and close every not > > > > > needed/already merged > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. > If > > you > > > > > were involved > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't > > hesitate > > > > > to ask here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > >
