Cody, Thanks for commenting. "inactive" here means no code push nor comments. So any "ping" would actually keep the pr in the open queue. Getting auto-closed also by no means indicate the pull request can't be reopened.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that sat inactive for > more than 30 days due to committers not having time to look at them, > but did eventually end up successfully being merged. > > I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping and reopening the > PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses the underlying > issue. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469 today. While we can > > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these are old and still open > > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original authors have > become > > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because the committers are > not > > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have not rejected the patch > > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise ratio by closing pull > > requests that have been inactive for greater than 30 days, with a nice > > message. I just checked and this would close ~ half of the pull requests. > > > > For example: > > > > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since this pull request has > been > > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing it. Closing the pull > > request does not remove it from history and will retain all the diff and > > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and would like to continue > > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks again!" > > > > >
