> I'm not convinced by having a blanket policy here. I'm fine with stopping short of an automated policy. However, I think it'd be helpful to provide committers, especially new committers, with conditions that make a PR eligible to be closed. Since committers act on behalf of the PMC, documentation can give them confidence that they are acting correctly.
Once we have guidance, I am happy to add it to the Committer Guide on the wiki [0]. For example, we could say that a committer can close a PR when: 1. The PR's intended change is superseded by another change. In this case, the committer should provide a reference to the other PR. 2. The PR's intended change has been rejected by the community. In this case, the rejection must first be discussed on the mailing list. 3. The PR does not appear to fix an issue and the contributor has not responded to a request for clarification within some time frame (maybe a month?). In this case, the committer should note that the PR can be reopened if/when the contributor is available to move the PR forward. My goal in starting this thread was to clarify when I can close PRs. Matteo, your comment raises an additional question for me. What are Apache's rules for completing someone else's contribution? If someone opens a PR to fix a bug, but it is incomplete and they become unresponsive, how can we move their contribution forward? These are the PRs we don't want to close. Thanks, Michael [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Committer-Guide On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:12 PM Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not convinced by having a blanket policy here. > > In several cases, these PRs carried some very valuable ideas that > still needed some work to get merged. By using blanket close, we'd be > losing all that context and we should not do that. > > What would actually be helpful, is help in reviewing these old PRs to > identify what is either already rejected or superseded by other > changes and what just needs some help to get completed. > > Just declaring PR bankrupticity alone won't solve the problem of why > more PRs are created than reviewers can review. > > > Matteo > > -- > Matteo Merli > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:05 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I am +1 for closing PRs that are over a year old. > > > > Does anyone else in the community have thoughts on these old PRs? > > Getting consensus and creating a process here could help make our > > committers more efficient. > > > > - Michael > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > I don't think I understand tison's objection to closing very stale PRs > > > automatically -- if it's gone that long without attention the situation > > > isn't likely to change. And the submitter can always reopen it if it's > > > still relevant. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:17 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I think that any Pulsar committer ought to close any PR that is more > > > > than > > > > one year old. That would clear about 75 from the backlog. The OP should > > > > be > > > > informed and if they are still interested then they can discuss it here. > > > > > > > > So when a stale PR is closed we should suggest that the OP subscribe to > > > > and email dev@pulsar.apache.org to discuss the PR. > > > > > > > > All the Best, > > > > Dave > > > > . > > > > > On Dec 3, 2021, at 9:17 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire > > > > more > > > > > reviewers act on PRs. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of talking about how to do it, reviewing one PR now can help > > > > > the > > > > > case. > > > > > Also, it's reasonable to close inactive PR if there is a successor. > > > > > But > > > > do > > > > > not let > > > > > a bot do it, which will create many corner (bad) cases. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> 于2021年12月4日周六 00:57写道： > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > >> > > > > >> I am excited to start contributing as a committer! I have a question > > > > >> about our process for closing stale PRs. > > > > >> > > > > >> We have ~300 open PRs right now. Do we have any guidelines on closing > > > > >> stale PRs? Of course we don't want to ignore important bug fixes, but > > > > >> we also don't want to clutter our repo with open PRs that won't get > > > > merged. > > > > >> > > > > >> For example, I reviewed this PR [0] about 3 months ago. The > > > > >> contributor has not yet responded to my feedback and it doesn't seem > > > > >> to fix an actual bug, so I think it is a candidate for closure. Here > > > > >> is another example [1]. I closed this one because it had merge > > > > >> conflicts with a commit that fixed the same underlying issue. > > > > >> > > > > >> Note that our committer guidelines [2] do not provide guidance on > > > > >> this > > > > >> subject. > > > > >> > > > > >> [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11237 > > > > >> [1] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11162 > > > > >> [2] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Committer-Guide > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Michael > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > @spyced
