I think that there should be a label added to any old PR that a contributor wants to keep open. I think “status/hold” would be a good label name. That will keep others who wish to review old PRs and close them from wasting their time.
I looked at the labels and I wonder about those that are “triage/week-N” Do these have a consistent use case? And if so, what is it? > On Dec 15, 2021, at 1:11 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 identify what is either already rejected or superseded by other 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
