I’d like to point out that if we label auto-closed PRs properly it is easy enough to find them in the GitHub UI.
> On Dec 15, 2021, at 3:05 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One problem with the current state is that PRs and even higher level ideas > have a shelf life. Declaring PR bankruptcy does in fact solve this problem. > > The other problem is that from a new contributor's perspective it's > impossible to tell which issues are relevant and which are clutter that we > haven't gotten around to closing out. > > For this, declaring PR bankruptcy isn't as good as somehow having the > capacity to review and respond to everything, but it's still better than > the status quo. And since no large-scale OSS project that I'm aware of has > figured out how to review and respond to everything sustainably, I'd settle > for an imperfect solution over a perfect one that probably doesn't exist. > > > 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 identify what is either already rejected or superseded by other 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 >> > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced
