epos. Another way to manage who can merge prs is to gate the
>> pr process using git actions, so that if an approved approver indicates a
>> pr is good then the raiser can merge – this would give us granularity on
>> write access – PyTorch follows this sort of process.
>>
>
indicates a
> pr is good then the raiser can merge – this would give us granularity on
> write access – PyTorch follows this sort of process.
>
> kind regards, David.
>
>
> From: Martijn Visser
> Date: Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:32
> To: dev@flink.apache.o
@flink.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs
Hi everyone,
I'm overall +1 on Ryan's comment.
When we're talking about component ownership, I've started a
discussion on the Infra mailing list in the beginning of the year on
it. In principle, the "code
nk that
> component ownership helps scope the subset of prs to review / merge.
>
> Kind regards, David.
>
>
> From: Ryan Skraba
> Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 15:09
> To: dev@flink.apache.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale P
– I would think that
component ownership helps scope the subset of prs to review / merge.
Kind regards, David.
From: Ryan Skraba
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 15:09
To: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: RE: Close orphaned/stale PRs
Hey, this has been an
Radley wrote:
>
> Hi,
> To add I agree with Martijn’s insights; I think we are saying similar things.
> To progress agreed upon work, and not blanket close all stale prs,
> Kind regards, David.
>
> From: David Radley
> Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 10:59
> To
te: Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 00:36
To: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs
Gentle ping to surface this up for more discussions.
Regards
Venkata krishnan
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:59 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan
wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
> Agre
esday, 4 October 2023 at 00:36
To: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Close orphaned/stale PRs
Gentle ping to surface this up for more discussions.
Regards
Venkata krishnan
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:59 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan
wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
> Agree with your point tha
Gentle ping to surface this up for more discussions.
Regards
Venkata krishnan
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:59 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan
wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
> Agree with your point that closing a PR without any review feedback even
> after 'X' days is discouraging to a new contributor. I un
Hi Martijn,
Agree with your point that closing a PR without any review feedback even
after 'X' days is discouraging to a new contributor. I understand that this
is a capacity problem. Capacity problem cannot be solved by this proposal
and it is beyond the scope of this proposal.
Regarding your ea
Hi all,
I really believe that the problem of the number of open PRs is just
that there aren't enough reviewers/resources available to review them.
> Stale PRs can clutter the repository, and closing them helps keep it
> organized and ensures that only relevant and up-to-date PRs are present.
Su
Thanks for your response, Martijn.
> What's the added value of
closing these PRs
It mainly helps the project maintainers/reviewers to focus on only the
actively updated trimmed list of PRs that are ready for review.
It helps Flink users who are waiting on a PR that enhances an existing
feature o
Hi Venkata and Martijn,
Stale PRs can clutter the repository, and closing them helps keep it
organized and ensures that only relevant and up-to-date PRs are
present. An open PR should imply that work is ongoing or needs review.
On the other hand, a PR that reaches a stale state rather means the
pr
Hi Venkata,
Thanks for opening the discussion, I've been thinking about it quite a
bit but I'm not sure what's the right approach.
>From your proposal, the question would be "What's the added value of
closing these PRs"? I don't see an immediate value of that: it would
just close PRs where mainta
14 matches
Mail list logo
