I am +1 to close stale PRs -- not sure to what extend we want to
automate it, or just leave it up to the committers to do the cleanup
manually. I am happy both ways.
However, I also want to point out, that one reason why we have so many
stale PRs is the committer overload to actually review PRs. It's a pity
that committer cannot keep up with the load (guilty as charged myself).
Not sure if it would help if more contributors could help doing reviews,
such that PRs are "pre-reviewed" and already in good shape before a
committer reviews it?
For KIPs, there is actually two more categories:
- "Dormant/Inactive"
- "Discarded:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals#KafkaImprovementProposals-DiscardedKIPs
For Kafka Streams in particular, we also try to make the status of KIP
clear in the corresponding sub-page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Streams
I might be useful thought to just do a better job to update KIP status
more frequently -- we could also re-organize the main KIP wiki page -- I
think it contains too much information and is hard to read.
For the Kafka Streams sub-page, we use it for all "active" KIPs, while
we maintain a second page for adopted KIPs grouped by release:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Streams+KIP+Overview
I find this much more digestible compared to the main KIP page.
Might also be good to have a sub-page for Connect KIPs?
-Matthias
On 2/5/22 05:57, Luke Chen wrote:
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.
