Hello, David, Luke. What about KIPs? Should we have some special state on KIPs that was rejected or can’t be implemented due to lack of design or when Kafka goes in another direction? Right now those kind of KIPs just have no feedback. For me as a contributor it’s not clear - what is wrong with the KIP.
Is it wrong? Is there are no contributor to do the implementation? > 5 февр. 2022 г., в 15:49, Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > Hi David, > > I agree with it! This is also a good way to let both parties (code author > and reviewers) know there's a PR is not active anymore. Should we continue > it or close it directly? > > In my opinion, 1 year is too long, half a year should be long enough. > > Thank you. > Luke > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 8:17 PM Sagar <sagarmeansoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey David, >> >> That's a great idea.. Just to stress your point, this keeps both parties >> informed if a PR has become stale. So, the reviewer would know that there >> was some PR which was being reviewed but due to inactivity it got closed so >> maybe time to relook and similarly the submitter. >> >> And yeah, any stale/unused PRs can be closed straight away thereby reducing >> the load on reviewers. I have done some work on kubernetes open source and >> they follow a similar paradigm which is useful. >> >> Thanks! >> Sagar. >>
