Hi Nikolay, That's a good question! But I think for stale KIP, we should have another discussion thread.
In my opinion, I agree we should also have similar mechanism for KIP. Currently, the state of KIP has "under discussion", "voting", and "accepted". The KIP might stay in "discussion" or "voting" state forever. We might be able to have a new state called "close" for KIP. And we can review those inactive KIPs for a long time like PR did, to see if these KIPs need to close or re-start the discussion again. Thank you. Luke On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > >> > >
